W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > March 2010

Minutes of HTML-A11Y 18 March

From: Joshue O Connor <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie>
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 16:03:30 +0000
Message-ID: <4BA24ED2.20907@cfit.ie>
To: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Hi y'all,

Here are todays minutes.[1]

Apologies for ommissions/errors



[1] http://www.w3.org/2010/03/18-html-a11y-minutes.html

HTML-A11Y telecon
18 Mar 2010


See also: IRC log
+1.650.862.aaaa, Gregory_Rosmaita, +0154558aabb, Janina, Ben_Caldwell, 
Rich, John_Foliot, kford, Joshue, Sean_Hayes, Mike
Laura_Carlson, Denis_Boudreau, Dick_Bulterman, Eric_Carlson, 
Sylvia_Pfieffer, Geoff_Freed
Media Sub Team
Bug report
Summary of Action Items

<LeifHS> Hi. I will try to present at 16:30. Leif

hi y'all

<scribe> scribe: Joshue

JS: Lets get the agenda going

<janina> agenda: this

JS: I suggests skipping ACTION review
... We are getting good feedback from the wider group re:canvas etc

RS: We made some progress re:boolean att in HTML 5


RS: This is a proposal we have, there is good feedback. We have modified 
to nonav as a boolean @. Its not written as a conformance statement, but 
advice for authors. Well recieved by wider HTML group.
... We still are working on Chaals proposal and some API mods to 2D.

JS: So this is a perfecting amendment to what we agreed last week? 
Unless anyone disagrees?
... Is it largely editorial.
... The next step is the 2D focus change proposal

RS: There are diffs in the way Apple implement things vs Windows
... For example, the blink rate, we have to be careful about triggering 
seizures etc, am busy with SXSW and CSUN etc

JS: Yes, there is a lot of traffic about his, excellent.

RS: I have a question for the HTML WG chairs, how do we position Issue 72?

MS: No one on call at the mo.

JS: I said last week that this is a partial resolution.
... There will be three parts, Focus, 2D and Chaals proposal
... The subteam thought the first two would be acceptable and then 
enhanced by Chaals

<oedipus> agree with JS' synopsis

RS: I would agree with that

JS: This is a strong proposal in toto
... Anything else?

<oedipus> GJR: chaals' suggestion involves changing HTML5 definition of 
imagemap in order to work properly -- the prognosis for that is not very 

RS: Its a lot of work for an attribute!
Media Sub Team

JS: We spoke on this last week
... We talked about media in the PF call yest, also in WAI CG call. We 
are a little blocked, we discussed what may be resolutions and the 
result was..lets take another look at the wiki requirements doc. We 
assigned some action items etc, put out a call for changes and edits etc 
and or ommissions.
... That should take a couple of weeks, may not resolve but will help.

Is this time stamps or media codecs?

JS: We didn't talk codecs
... We tried to understand everyones positons.
... If we do too little, it could be a prob
... We need the right balance, the media group, PF , HTML so we have 
some extra people looking.
... On the API there was a chance to move this a little, I wasn't fully 
up to speed and some of us may not be, but we have some actions to 
remedy this.

<oedipus> GJR has action item to reveiw API and solicit review from DAISY

JS: We are not delaying by much to ask for people to look at this for 
us, based on past experience it is useful.
... Is there more to say JF?

JF: Not that I am aware of, the biggest issue seems to be time stamp. I 
am a little out of the loop but I don't see a lot of action.
... Dick is working on a proposal, don't know where to go from here.
... Sylvias idea also needs to be worked on.

JS: As Mike pointed out the big issue may be styling.
... There are some disagreements.

JF: There is not structure to SRT time etc, we need something 
extensible. So the question is what can we do to provide one?

JS: Right

JF: We need something beside SRT but we don't know what it is.

<oedipus> GJR still maintains that SRT is a non-starter

JS: Also worried that we can save in extra features, it is a reasonable 
idea but may be an issue with standards developement. If experience is 

JF: Yes.
... DFXP has some appeal, as with profiles we can evolve greater support.

<oedipus> GJR whatever is used needs to meet a11y requirements NOW -- 
SRT would need an add-on / work to integrate what one gets with SMILText 
for free

JF: There are issues, this would be a good start that we can build upon.

<MikeSmith> a couple points: the styling mechanism in DFXP -- even if it 
is profiled -- is not compatible with browsers; and it is imaginable 
that SRT could be extended to include styling

JF: So the standard can be the W3C DFXP format.

<Zakim> oedipus, you wanted to say SRT extension is a non-starter

JS: Sounds like a possibilty, any comments?

GJR: I am against SRT (strongly)..if implemented there is no a11y 
capabilities like with SMIL

MS: Yes, but if everyone takes a strong position then we won't reach 

<Zakim> MikeSmith, you wanted to comment

MS: So it is not prudent to say that SRT is a non-runner, we won't reach 

JF: We have to provide an extensible mechanism from the get go.

MS: If we agree to start with a profile DFXP, we will not get that 
... The browser maker say that is not the ideal soltuion for them

<oedipus> MikeSmith, if SRT is used it has to meet the a11y requirments 
identified by the TF BEFORE it is implemented in HTML5 -- otherwise, we 
are codifying a less-than-accessible alternative with only the promise 
of future work on SRT to support a11y features/requirements

<oedipus> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/44061/media-text-format/results

JF: We can't just have one, this is a standard. We are writing a standard.

MS: <disagrees>

GJR: John and I are saying of SRT gets into HTML, SRT itself must be 
tweaked to support a11y

<LeifHS> @oedipus Chaals has said that it is *not* /necessary/ to change 
the HTML5 definition of image maps

GJR: SRT can create a black hole

JF: There is a lot of stuff in HTML that is not implemented.
... We need to ensure that an extensible format is locked in.

<LeifHS> oedipus: I think he said so 2 weeks ago, in this meeting.

<LeifHS> (I will call in if the @summary comes up ...)

SH: We have an implementation of DFXP, that is almost complete and would 
be happy to put it in the spec. So I don't see it as a non starter.
... The biggest thing is to get something in the spec, we are against 
shipping deadlines.

MS: I agree
... I asked JF, what styling mech does it use?

<JF> Adobe is already supporting DFXP today

SH: It is a self contained system. DFXP has an advantage as it doesn't 
rely on browser components.

JS: So Microsoft would be ok with a spec that relied on DFXP.

SH: Yes, speaking for the people at IE
... Our main issue is getting something soon into the spec.

JS: What about SMIL?

SH: We would prefer DFXP.

<oedipus> http://www.w3.org/TR/smil/

SH: SMIL is huge, I would have to look at it.
... DFXP is based a lot on SMIL, it is a subset.

JS: This is important info.
... Any other comments?
... We will talk about his in B'mingham.
... Also on the phone
... We need a resolution that works on many levels.

<LeifHS> @oedipus Here is what Chaals said 4th of march: "Chaals: HTML5 
imagemap model actually can support Chaals"

JF: I will be on the phone

<oedipus> http://www.w3.org/TR/ttaf1-dfxp/#dfxp-content-doctype

<MikeSmith> expensive because of Easter holiday, I think

SH: I will be back for the next media installment.

I'll be there

<MikeSmith> I will be there

<oedipus> GJR will remotely participate

<JF> JF remotely attending

JS: Who is coming?
... We need people who are participating here, we needs champs, we'll do 
that via mail.
... I don't know if he is.

<LeifHS> @oedipus But he added that "HTML5 spec doesn't yet work, HTML4 
does". (Me: May be both could need some tuning ...)

JS: Lets look at Lauras latest bug report
Bug report


GJR: I got it.


JS: We need to look at Bug 7721: "Drag and Drop is not keyboard 
accessible" reported by Rich



<oedipus> drag and drop: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7721

JS: Can some tag these as we go.
... Mike

<oedipus> audio and video syncronization: 

They seem to be all tagged btw

<oedipus> canvas needs a11y fallback: 

<oedipus> title where alt ommited: 

<oedipus> @summary not obsoltete: 

MS: Whats happening, along with some others, discussed this with Maciej. 
There are a lot of bugs that have changed to verify status and there is 
a note saying that a response is requested in two weeks. That is why 
this is on the list.

<oedipus> encourage use of @summary: 

JS: We should just re-open?

MS: Yes, just re-open them.

JS: Ok
... What Laura is saying the other bugs were re-opened by Maciej?

MS: I will check them one by one

<oedipus> closed bug progress element should be labelable with label: 
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8554 (Maciej)

MS: 7011 is the same, am re-opening
... 7632, 7539 same

<MikeSmith> 8554

MS: What about 8554, we need someone to evaluate?

<MikeSmith> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8554

MS: Is there much more that needs to be done with this?
... Seems to be resolved.
... Lets leave that one.

JS: Yup
... Now, re-opened bugs, lets jump to Cat 5 and see if we agree with 
tagging them.

<MikeSmith> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9241

JF: 9231 and 9233 are somewhat linked.

sorry John, I got the second bug wrong, please edit

<kford> Zakim/me can someone post the bug link again, my IRC lost the buffer

JS: In the W3C schema should come from WAI and WCAG, authoring tools 
etc. We are missing techniques for other things.

MS: These are a little different, as JF said.
... Lets take that to the list

JS: The consensus seems to be lets just link to the appropriate document 
as required.
... Would you do that?

JF: Yup

MS: There is a non trivial cost to taking up these issues with the TF.
... We need to agree criteria for our descisions to take on issues.

Is that not just based on importance?

MS: Could you take that to the list, that would be great?

I get ya

JS: Yes, it takes time

MS: At one extreme we just take them all on.
... But we should decide where and how to draw the line.

JS: Michael did try to group them to make it easier.

MS: It is a matter of cycles

JF: We are all going to be very busy for the next few weeks.

RS: the new 508 draft came out yest

MS: 9216 has been discussed a lot lately, that is a priority. What do 
people think?

9216: "Provide a CAPTCHA example that is in accord with WCAG 2 or

Defer to "HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives'"

JS: We can tag it as an issue and take it up with the group.

<oedipus> laura's email delineating process on CAPTCHA: 

JF: Laura mailed me on this.
... Would it be useful to do a survey?

JS: Yes

MS: If Laura has done the work..

JF: The questions are there.

MS: Ok, I can do this


MS: Should we wait a little?
... Or do it today?

JF: Late next week may be better

JS: Yes

MS: Ok

<MikeSmith> so I will get a WBS survey drafted up, using Laura's message 
as the basis, with plan to get it out at the end of next week

JS: We are at the hour, no meeting next week. Tune in on 1st April.
... Anything else?
Received on Thursday, 18 March 2010 16:04:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:55:33 UTC