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

Minutes: November 23: HTML Accessibility Bug Triage Sub-Team

From: Martin Kliehm <martin.kliehm@namics.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 18:22:23 +0100
Message-ID: <4CEBF84F.5050201@namics.com>
To: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>




HTML Accessibility Bug-Triage
23 Nov 2010


     Marco_Ranon, Martin_Kliehm, Michael_Cooper
     Michael_Cooper, Martin_Kliehm


* Topics
      1. Find scribe
      2. Accessible fallback mechanisms for embedded content
      3. Sifting of NEW bugs
      4. Assign homework for next week
* Summary of Action Items

TOPIC: Accessible fallback mechanisms for embedded content

<MichaelC> Discussion of uses cases

<MichaelC> considered the following:

<MichaelC> Short text alternative can substitute for the object, 
sometimes on its own and sometimes complemented by an additional "long 
text alternative". Normally, short text alternatives aren't provided if 
direct accessibility is possible, but it may still be used if direct 
accessibility for whatever reason isn't enabled (e.g., canvas makes a 
simple image and there is no need to enable full shadow...

<MichaelC> ...DOM support).

<MichaelC> Long text alternative can substitute for the object, fairly 
completely. Normally it complements a short text alternative but in the 
case of transcripts may stand on its own.

<MichaelC> Label identifies the object and tells the user if they want 
to go into it more. This has both non-accessibility and accessibility 
use cases. Frequently confounded with short text alternatives, it's a 
distinct use case and optimally should have a different implementation. 
Generally, if a label is provided, a short text alternative would be 
redundant and is not separately required.

<MichaelC> Summary is more than a short text alternative, but not the 
complete replacement that a long text alternative should be. Like a 
label, it may help a user decide whether to explore more, or may be a 
sufficient overview of the object in many cases.

<MichaelC> Advisory / tooltip is a kind of text label that is usually 
displayed as a tooltip. Although frequently taken from short text 
alternatives or captions, this is not an accessibility use case. It is 
in the table to show that it is a distinct use case and should not be 
confounded with other accessibility fallbacks.

<MichaelC> Idiosyncratic direct accessibility means the object content 
itself provides ways to make it accessible, e.g., caption formats in 
video, features of SVG, the shadow DOM of canvas, etc. Generally, if a 
format supports direct accessibility it may still benefit from a label, 
but should not require a short or long text alternative. However, some 
objects may not enable the direct accessibility and...

<MichaelC> ...still require external text alternatives, such as a short 
text alternative for a simple image implemented with canvas, or a 
transcript (i.e., long text alternative) for an audio. Note that for 
embed and object, this depends on features of the loaded content 
language, so these elements may or may not require separate fallbacks 
within the HTML.

<MichaelC> Specify none needed is for formats that need to be able to 
indicate that they are "presentational" and no accessibility fallback is 

<MichaelC> discussed which of these use cases apply to which types of 
embedded content

<MichaelC> ACTION: Michael to send his embedded content analysis to the 
task force list [recorded in 

TOPIC: Sifting of NEW bugs

<MichaelC> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10660

<kliehm> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10660

<MichaelC> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11140

<MichaelC> related to the above

<kliehm> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11199

<kliehm> Bug triage sub-team thinks this is not a HTML A11Y TF priority. 
The primary

<kliehm> accessibility need is to provide headings at all; providing 
them in an outline

<kliehm> or clearly associated with landmarks is helpful but only if 

<kliehm> consistently. Further, HTML 5 provides various ways to achieve 
this (though

<kliehm> none of them are mandatory). There could be some value in 
looking more closely

<kliehm> at section types aka landmarks in HTML.next, but don't think we 
should in the

<kliehm> HTML 5 timeframe. Furthermore, the issue is more with user 
agent presentation

<kliehm> existing heading features than with the HTML spec itself.

<kliehm> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11207

<kliehm> Bug triage sub-team think this is a HTML A11Y TF priority, is 
already in active discussion with the media sub-group.

<kliehm> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11238

<kliehm> Adding a11yTF keyword

<kliehm> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11242

<MichaelC> Bug triage sub-team agrees this is an A11Y TF priority. 
However, it is clear this will come back as needsinfo in its current 
state. Assigning to Rich to address within the canvas sub-team and 
provide the needed info. Assign to Ian when complete.

<kliehm> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11279

<MichaelC> Bug triage sub-team doesn't think this is a A11Y TF priority. 
It's not an HTML feature, just a spec clarity issue. Our understanding 
is there is a specific reason for the phrasing approach, and doesn't 
need task force involvement.
Assign homework for next week

<kliehm> Homework for next week: shepherding Michael's post regarding 
embedded content to the list.

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Michael to send his embedded content analysis to the task 
force list [recorded in 
Received on Tuesday, 23 November 2010 17:22:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:55:47 UTC