- From: Gregory J. Rosmaita <oedipus@hicom.net>
- Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 17:14:33 +0000
- To: public-html-a11y@w3.org
- Message-Id: <20100311170441.M82914@hicom.net>
aloha!
minutes from today's HTML5 Accessibility Task Force teleconference
are available as hypertext at:
http://www.w3.org/2010/03/11-html-a11y-minutes.html
as an IRC log at:
http://www.w3.org/2010/03/11-html-a11y-irc
and as plain text following my signature -- many thanks to SteveF
for performing the bulk of the minutes; as usual, any clarifications,
corrections, mis-attributions and the like should be logged by
replying-to this announcement on-list...
please note that the HTML A11y TF will meet on 18 March 2010 --
at that meeting a decision will be taken as to whether or not to
convene a TF telcon on 25 March 2010 (many TF members will be in
attendence at CSUN during the week of 22-27 March 2010)
please also make note of the fact that the U.S. switches to Daylight
Savings Time on 14 March 2010 -- this change will affect the start time
of the TF teleconference, as W3C timing is synced with Eastern Standard
Time; to find the time of the 18 March 2010 meetting in your time
zone, please consult the TimeAndDate information provided at the
following URI:
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?month=3&day=18&year=2010&hour=16&min=0&sec=0&p1=0
thank you, gregory.
_________________________________________________________________
- DRAFT -
HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference
11 Mar 2010
Agenda:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Mar/0186.html
See also: IRC log [http://www.w3.org/2010/03/11-html-a11y-irc]
Attendees
Present
Ben_Caldwell, Dick_Bulterman, Eric_Carlson, Geoff_Freed,
Gregory_Rosmaita, Janina, Matt, Michael_Cooper, Mike,
Mike_Barta, Rich, Stevef, paulc
Regrets
Kelly_Ford, Aurélien_Levy, Jon_Gunderson, Markku_Hakkinen,
Denis_Boudreau, Laura_Carlson, Marco_Ranon
Chair
MikeSmith
Scribe
Stevef
Contents
* Topics
1. decision on Canvas navsubstree proposal to HTML WG:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Mar/
0014.html
2. status of Canvas focuse proposal:
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/canvasaccessib
ility
3. decision on Multitrack API proposal to HTML WG:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_MultitrackAPI
4. status of TextAssociations proposal:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_TextAssociations
5. f2f planning for April 6-7 meeting
* Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________________
<trackbot> Date: 11 March 2010
<MikeSmith>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Mar/0186.html
<MikeSmith> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Scribe_List
<MichaelC> Meeting: HTML-A11Y telecon
<oedipus> FYI canvas subgroup telecon minutes (2010-03-08)
<oedipus> FYI canvas subgroup telecon minutes (2010-03-08)
http://www.w3.org/2010/03/08-html-a11y-minutes.html
<MichaelC> agenda:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Mar/0186.html
<MikeSmith> scribe: Stevef
decision on Canvas navsubstree proposal to HTML WG:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Mar/0014.html
<oedipus> canvas subgroup telecon minutes (2010-03-08)
http://www.w3.org/2010/03/08-html-a11y-minutes.html
Mike: navsubtree has greater agreement at this point, anyone object to
sending ot html wg for wider review
<oedipus> discussion of ADom and imagemap approaches:
http://www.w3.org/2010/03/08-html-a11y-minutes.html#item02
janina: will be couple of additional pieces coming later including
focus proposal
<oedipus>
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/canvasaccessibility
<oedipus> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/Map4NotAdom
<oedipus> rich's proposal email:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-canvas-api/2010JanMar/0276.
html
rich: 2 other proposals 1 focus and caret tracking and image map 2.
image map, need to work on with chaals,
<oedipus> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/12
<oedipus> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/19
mike: record a resolution to put navsubtree proposal forward, and give
people 48 hours to object, but needs more wider discussion
... will put in language for proposed resolution as placeholder until
agreed
<MikeSmith> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The a11y TF resolves that the canvas
navsubtree proposal is ready for wider review by the HTML WG, with the
understanding that the a11y TF supports it principle and the related
proposals needed to fully resolve the issue are still under discussion
and will be forthcoming.
<oedipus> plus 1
<richardschwerdtfe> +1
<oedipus> plus 1 with removal of "in principle"
<inserted> scribnick: oedipus
<inserted> scribenick: oedipus
SF: Rich asking for change proposal for HTML WG wiki? this is spec
ready text, right?
RS: Maciej said need justification for why we are doing it on the wiki
<MikeSmith> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The a11y TF resolves that the canvas
navsubtree proposal is ready for wider review by the HTML WG, with the
understanding that the a11y TF supports it and that related proposals
needed to fully resolve the issue are still under discussion and will
be brought to the HTML WG later.
SF: i can create the necessary wiki page -- then get input required
for rationale
MS: do need the wiki page, if you can volunteer, it would be great
SF: will mock it up today
RS: SteveF, you'll set up
SF: yes -- will send URI to TF list -- need to reveiew rationale to
ensure has all required info
RS: reveiw period?
MS: 48 hours
RS: ok
MC: 48 hour period -- web based survey or call for objections on
mailing list
<MikeSmith> RESOLUTION: The a11y TF resolves that the canvas
navsubtree proposal is ready for wider review by the HTML WG, with the
understanding that the a11y TF supports it and that related proposals
needed to fully resolve the issue are still under discussion and will
be brought to the HTML WG later.
MS: call for objections on list
... action for SteveF to write up change proposal in way HTML WG
requires
status of Canvas focuse proposal:
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/canvasaccessibility
<inserted> scribenick: Stevef
mike: rich please update us
<oedipus> RESOLVED: The a11y TF resolves that the canvas navsubtree
proposal is ready for wider review by the HTML WG, with the
understanding that the a11y TF supports it and that related proposals
needed to fully resolve the issue are still under discussion and will
be brought to the HTML WG later.
Rich: 1 tried to be inline with 2d spec, merged caret/focus. and
maciej had same concern , asking to spereate caret out. bit in spec
about who draws focus ring waiting for clarification. will then write
proposal update, hopeing to have it ready in the next couple of weeks
<oedipus> SF: need clarification from hixie
<oedipus> RS: sent to maciej - first canvas implementation by apple
decision on Multitrack API proposal to HTML WG:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_MultitrackAPI
<oedipus> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/44061/multitrack-api/results
mike: eric please summarise state of agreement
eric: sylvia sent out a summary of things that need to be changed in
the spec in regards to multitrack api
... believe it had consensus
mike: to do resolution
<oedipus>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Mar/0177.html
<oedipus> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/44061/text-associations/
<MikeSmith> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The a11y TF resolves that the
Multitrack API proposal -- after Silvia makes the changes she outlined
by e-mail -- is ready for wider review by the HTML WG, with the
understanding that the a11y TF supports it and that related proposals
needed to fully resolve the related issue are still under discussion
and will be brought to the HTML WG later.
<oedipus>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Mar/0178.html
<MikeSmith>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Mar/0199.html
<- Dick's message
dick: minority opinion re tracks proposal, form our SMIL experienece,
things being merged, not particularly clean and locks into approach,
should decouple slection and synchronization, proposal doesn't handle
it cleanly, not a wise combination from SMIL experienec
<MikeSmith>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Mar/0203.html
<- Philip's reply
eric: i don't think we are too far down the path to change, if
something else makes more sens, maybe we hold of on sending to html wg
to discuss further
<oedipus> plus 1 to eric
janina: also would like discussion on TF call before sending to WG
eric: hoped people who had an opinion would have jumped in on mailing
list discussion
dick: will provide SMIL examples of approach, design philosophy
... do not want to obstruct but think there are things current
proposal does not cover
mike: more discussion is good, so go for it
... better to take more mature proposal
eric: issue will come up so need to talk more
Mike: would be nice to expidite it and value in getting wider
discussion
... will look at it start of next week status check
status of TextAssociations proposal:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_TextAssociations
mike: text association proposal, eric summary?
<oedipus> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/44061/media-text-format/?
eric: sylvia went through all emails, summarised issues that need to
eb addressed before we send to wider group, not a long list of changes
<oedipus>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Mar/0177.html
<MikeSmith>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Mar/0177.html
mike: more discussion on formats is neceserry, will need to move file
formats from change request
... some people won't support this
<oedipus> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_TextAssociations
mike: we have a choice, the file formats part is what we don't have
agreement on, but sylvia thinks this won't happen soon, so remove from
proposal
... anybody on the call today object from removing the formats section
for now?
<oedipus> sylvia: "not clear what requirements would necessitate more
than just srt - I am planning on a separate discussion thread as soon
as the format survey is closed. For now we will probably need to
remove the section about file formats from the change request "
eric: if we remove ot from the propsoal, have to have wording to say
why , with a goal to coming up with some format requirment as this
will never fly unless we have some sort of format reuirement
<oedipus> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/44061/text-associations/
<oedipus>
http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/44061/text-associations/results
dick: formatting issue, what is mandated, needs to be a set of
requirements for short to middle term, other part of proposal from my
perspective links selection and synchronization together same problem
as previouys
... many synchronization concerns glossed over, have these things been
talked about, are we interetsed in feedback?
mike: does seem we have agreement that the requirements aren't clear,
what would neccesitate more than SRT, does not ste what format is
needed
<oedipus> FWIW: strongly believe that the popularity of SRT is NOT a
reason for it to supersede other formats in HTML5; its widespread use
warrants consideration for its inclusion but NOT at the expense of
other formats -- especially SmilText -- which support advanced
text-display features which are NOT part of SRT
mike: if we do remove then put disclaimer in to say that this cannot
be implemented unless we decide on formats. we are waiting on sylvia
to change proposal
dick: multicolored text, or styled text has this disucssion taken
place or have the issues been resolved
eric: don't think we have had discussions about whether styling is a
requirement
GeoffF: need to discuss these to resiolve format issue, i think to
move things forward good idea to move format discussion out of current
proposal
mike: need to list iut the potential set of format requirements, but
it is pretty clear the proposal is not ready, take some more time,
sylvia needs to make chnages and back out to list for more discussion
dick: can this be discussed at f2f
mike: yes we can, nee to discuss f2f agenda
<paulc> the TF should have a concrete plan to decide what to do at the
F2F and what NOT to do at the F2F and will be done separately.
dick: don't know who is going to be there
f2f planning for April 6-7 meeting
mike: f2f agenda planning: topics?
... jeff will not be ther inperson, but via phone, eric will be there,
philip from opera may not be there
... should be high on agenda, but may not get much done if right
people are not attending
... MC , JS agendas?
<MikeSmith> paulc, can you speak briefly on the call today to give
some suggestions about how best to plan for the f2f?
janina: list of topcs, may be useful to look at the list, also poepl
to adopt items from list
<MichaelC> Topic List
cyns: is API mapping on there/
paulC; how is it that mapping is an issue?
cyns: indivdiual bugs for individual issues
<paulc> See http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/138
<oedipus> SF: been response to some of statement of issues; some
sorted, some unsorted; action for production of matrix still in
progress; will work on it second day of PF face2face at CSUN
<oedipus> CS: easier to do in person
<paulc> If this action is generating bugs rather than related to
existing bugs that is a good explanation.
can somebody scribe now, i have to go
oedipus??
<oedipus> scribenick: oedipus
<paulc> Paul suggests that the facilitators clearly define what issues
will be on the F2F agenda and what actions the TF plans to take at the
F2F.
MS: trying to figure out if specific action anyone can take on f2f
planning; Janina and i need to get proposed agenda out A.S.A.P.; prior
to that, more specific info about what needed to do to get agenda
ready?
CS: phone bridge?
MC: made sure is a possibility for them
CS: can't travel to england that week
JS: there is a U.K. phone number to access Zakim
MS: Cooper, anything else to do in last 7 minutes to get closer to
prep for f2f
CS: something that might help is to ask those who can't attend or call
in to submit position paper or similar if want to make point; find a
champion who is attending
JS: list that MSmit read off -- first half have tackled and are at
some stage of resulution
... bottom half of list haven't started on at all -- some of those
might move forward if can get volunteers to come up with proposals
MS: sounds possible; worry about adding more stuff to f2f discussion
plans because don't want it to be overwhelming;
<paulc> I have to leave to get ready to scribe the HTML WG meeting.
Thanks.
MS: adding more topics may risk productivity
JS: long, prolonged controversial items, yes, but some low-hanging
fruit like headers/id, and summary
MS: have starting point for list of f2f topics
... paul advised to distill down to specific topics
... about to loose a lot of partipants due to commencement of HTML WG
telecon
... Janina, chair next week?
JS: yes; may be a lot of people missing in 2 weeks due to CSUN
MS: will be in cambridge, mass on 25 march 2010
JS: try to hold meeting or skip?
MS: decide next week
... make agenda item for next week -- meeting on 25 march 2010
JS: reminder - U.S. goes to Daylight Savings Time on Sunday, 14 march
2010 - meetings an hour earlier (w3c time pegged to E.S.T.)
CS: unable to participate much before CSUN
MS: ADJOURN
[ADJOURNED]
Summary of Action Items: NONE ASSIGNED
[End of minutes]
_________________________________________________________________
Received on Thursday, 11 March 2010 17:15:02 UTC