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

minutes: HTML Accessibility Task Force Weekly Telecon 2010-10-07 [draft]

From: Gregory J. Rosmaita <oedipus@hicom.net>
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2010 17:23:09 +0100
To: public-html-a11y@w3.org
Message-Id: <20101007162229.M23809@hicom.net>

minutes from today's HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference can 
be accessed as hypertext at:


as an IRC log at:


and as plain text following my signature -- as usual, please log any
errors, corrections, clarifications, mis-attributions and the like
by replying-to this announcement on-list

thanks to RichS for performing the bulk of the minuting

please note that the following RESOLUTIONS were logged at the 2010-10-07

   RESOLUTION: HTML A11y TF Action 60 closed

   RESOLUTION: HTML A11y TF Action 62 closed

   RESOLUTION: HTML A11y TF Action 63 closed

   RESOLUTION: No We do not want to take bugzilla output off the html
   accessibility task force list

no ACTION items were logged at the 2010-10-07 telecon, gregory.

                               - DRAFT -

             HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference
                              07 Oct 2010


   See also: IRC log http://www.w3.org/2010/10/07-html-a11y-irc


          Everett_Zufelt, Gregory_Rosmaita, Janina, Janina_Sajka,
          John_Foliot, Michael_Cooper, Mike, Rich, kliehm,

          Laura_Carlson, Denis_Boudreau, Kenny_Johar, Joshue_O'Connor




     * Topics
         1. Action 59
         2. do we want bugzilla output go to the list?
         3. Actions
         4. Action 60
         5. Action 62
         6. Action 63 on Silvia
         7. Action 65
         8. How to handle mail?
         9. What to do with public comments that we can engage in
        10. TPAC 2010
        11. longdesc
        12. Follow-Up on CANVAS
        13. canvas
     * Summary of Action Items

   <trackbot> Date: 07 October 2010

   <janina> OK, I'll dial in

   <MikeSmith> congrats to Drupal project

   <oedipus> EZ: drupal 7 finally has a beta release -- a lot of work
   went into making D7 more accessible

   <oedipus> EZ: will be an upgrade patch for D7 beta1 from D6

   <oedipus> Actions Review

   <richardschwerdtfe> scribe: Rich

   <oedipus> action-59?

   <trackbot> ACTION-59 -- Michael(tm) Smith to check into making it
   possible for any HTML WG member to post to the a11y TF list -- due
   2010-09-16 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/59

Action 59

   <MikeSmith> have not done that yet

   <inserted> scribenick: richardschwerdtfe

   Mike: the only way to do this is to manually add the address of
   everybody from the HTML working group to the accept list of the
   accessibility task force mailing list
   ... this means that anyone from the HTML working group wants to be
   able to post

   MikeC: We should add people on request only

   Mike: We can add case by case

   <oedipus> it came up in several bug comments - charter currently
   says use public-pfwg-comments which is for PF deliverables

   janina: We would not like to clutter up the PF comments list with

   MikeC: we could make this a world writable list

   oedipus: there were people commenting on people with disabilities
   and their needs
   ... Paul Cotton made a comment on behalf of the chairs that they
   would like a public list

   John: the real problem as Gregory states is that we are getting this
   traffic on bugzilla

   <MikeSmith> did we rule out the public-html-comments list already?

   Rich: agrees it is out of hand

do we want bugzilla output go to the list?


   <MichaelC> close action-59

   <trackbot> ACTION-59 Check into making it possible for any HTML WG
   member to post to the a11y TF list closed

Action 60

   <oedipus> action-60?

   <trackbot> ACTION-60 -- Sean Hayes to map WACG A, AA, and AAA
   against our checklist -- due 2010-09-22 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/60

   <MichaelC> close action-60

   <trackbot> ACTION-60 Map WACG A, AA, and AAA against our checklist

   <oedipus> action-62?

   <trackbot> ACTION-62 -- Gregory Rosmaita to - prepare detailed bugs
   against accesskey in HTML5, bugs seeking restoration of elements of
   accesskey from HTML4 that work and are deployed; will identify
   clearly whether bug refers to HTML4 or HTML5; in preparation for
   preparing spec ready text for accesskey; will tease out the issues
   pertaining to @tabindex and COMMAND element -- due 2010-09-23 --

   <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/62

   RESOLUTION: Action 60 closed

Action 62

   <MichaelC> close action-62

   <trackbot> ACTION-62 - prepare detailed bugs against accesskey in
   HTML5, bugs seeking restoration of elements of accesskey from HTML4
   that work and are deployed; will identify clearly whether bug refers
   to HTML4 or HTML5; in preparation for preparing spec ready text for
   accesskey; will tease out the issues pertaining to @tabindex and
   COMMAND element closed

   RESOLUTION: Action 62 closed

Action 63 on Silvia

   <MichaelC> close action-63

   <trackbot> ACTION-63 Create a bug on Content navigation by content
   structure closed

   <MichaelC> close action-64

   <trackbot> ACTION-64 File a bug on HTML 5 for Content Navigation by
   Content Structure due 20101001 closed

   RESOLUTION: Action 63 closed

   <oedipus> action-65

Action 65

   <oedipus> action-65?

   <trackbot> ACTION-65 -- Judy Brewer to will review threads on
   getting spec text in -- due 2010-10-06 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/65

   Mike: I will tag those all as media

How to handle mail?

   Janina: Do we want bugzilla to continue to go to the html task force
   mailing list

   oedipus: I think it is a good thing

   Janina: should we post bugzilla reports to a different list other
   than the task force

   <oedipus> agree with JF -- there are too many HTML5-oriented lists

   jfoliot: too many lists

   RESOLUTION: No We do not want to take bugzilla output off the html
   accessibility task force list

What to do with public comments that we can engage in discussions?

   janina: what to do to prevent from being burried?

   Rich: how about a phone call instead of thousandes of one and two
   sentence posts?

   <JF> +1 to MichaelC's idea

   michaelC: we can tie the back end database to the HTML working group
   but we would lose our walled garden

   JF: who do we want to open this to?

   cynthia: We do not want to open it up to the world

   michaelC: If we take the approach I suggested we open it up our
   walled garden to the entire HTML working group list

   oedipus: I think the most vocal people have been added

   cynthia: They can just ask to be added

   JF: Benjamin Hawkes Louis and Shelly Powers are interested. BHL has
   been added
   ... Either you are member of the working group or you are not

   RRSAgent: make log member

   RRSAgent make log world

   janina: we want to say why we want a separate list. It is not to
   exclude people but to simply manage the traffic

   <MikeSmith> good by me

   <oedipus> plus 1

   janina: without a better suggesion we will just be repeating

TPAC 2010

   <kliehm> I'll be at TPAC

   janina: a fair amount of interest about doing something about our
   issues such as Thurs and Friday when they talk about media issues

   <kliehm> Alas only November 3-5.

   janina: of the group here who will be at TPAC?

   <JF> <crickets>

   janina: Michael, Martin, Cynthia, Janina

   kliehm: I would like to have a talk on canvas 3D accessibility in a
   lightning talk

   michaelc: are you referring to the plenary day?

   kliehm: who would like to be in the lightning talk?

   michaelc: lightning talks are like 2-3 minutes
   ... it is a great opportunity if you can compress it into this time

   janina: we could wet the interest in the plenary and discuss
   Thursday and Friday

   cynthia: should be able to get over passport issues

   janina: anyone else?

   oedipus: I will attend virtually
   ... I have Mike Smith's skype address


   janina: I would like this to be short
   ... we want to ask for a reconsideration or a protest
   ... the sentiment is that this is not a done deal.
   ... there are some proposals on the table in terms of HTML 5
   ... I am aware that in PF and the Birmingham Face to Face is that we
   could do an aria based describedby pointing to the URI
   ... We are looking at a 2.0 or taking a short list of issues for
   ARIA 1.1.

   <oedipus> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Verbose_desc_reqs
   <oedipus> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Talk:Verbose_desc_reqs

   <oedipus> HTML WG Bug 10853: HTML5 lacks a verbose description
   mechanism: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10853

   janina: we have two issues we could do in ARIA 1.1

   janina: this is host language agnostic
   ... let's throw out some ideas
   ... let's bring longdesc back now that we have meat our October 31

   oedipus: I have opened bug 10853 on the generic concept of a verbose

   <JF> +q

   oedipus: we could put in a native describedby


   cynthia: do we want a mechanism like this to be around?

   <oedipus> GJR says we addressed this over a year and a half ago - it
   is the HTML WG's failure to accomodate our requests/requirements

   janina: there seems to be a lot of interest around to keep it

   cynthia: I don't know there is a consensus to escalate a bug

   JF: I don't think is the most important thing we need to do

   <JF> http://www.d.umn.edu/~lcarlson/research/ld.html

   JF: Laura Carlson has been continuing to post the research but did
   get frustrated
   ... we all know the list
   ... we believe that we have to address backward compatibility

   <Zakim> oedipus, you wanted to say that politically, we can't allow
   chairs to simply remove something previously added for a11y without
   them proposing an alternate mechanism

   cynthia: I want to make sure we have concensus going forward

   <JF> +1 to GJR

   oedipus: this is a bigger issue than just one element

   <MikeSmith> janina, note richardschwerdtfe on the queue

   <oedipus> RS: this is a general strategy discussion -- concerned
   about wasting cycles adding elements into HTML where ARIA already
   suffices; we can address this issue -- describedby can be discussed
   out-of-context -- so many other things to work on -- wouldn't open
   new bugs for things supported by ARIA -- if can get 1.0 out the
   door, doing ARIA 1.1 would be place for changes/development

   <JF> will ARIA 1.1 be ready by the time HTML5 reaches CR?

Follow-Up on CANVAS


   <inserted> scribenick: oedipus

   JS: HTML chairs have taken up our resolution and chaals' --
   ... how to rephrase or drop or synthesize
   ... adom is history - so no queries on adom

   CS: adom is in the spec
   ... adom in spec and in major UA

   RS: when have DOM have to have 1-to-1 mapping to user interface
   ... second option: @nonav -- if only way subtree is used, then we
   are done

   CS: @nonav is nice to have but not a priority

   RS: think we got what we want
   ... third issue: what to do with chaals' proposal - whoever drives
   this, has to be prepared to be in month-long (at least) fight with
   editor on getting IMAP in CANVAS - gives shortcuts for automatic
   drawing, but question worth effort - does anyone want to take on the

   CS: anyone talked to chaals?

   RS: asked him to drive through
   ... would leave to JS and MS to assign

   JS: appropriate for him to drive his canvas proposal
   ... concern is more precise: the chairs drafted set of 5 questions
   with which to run a survey - got sense they are not the right 5
   ... mechanism will be a series of questions -- need to ensure the
   right questions are asked -- will start from survey

   CS: questions are fine - number 4 is counter-proposal to number 1
   ... 1 question is "get rid of adom?" -- we should give a resounding

   RS: no problem with @nonav being dropped; hixie's suggestions do
   nothing to address issue; is a counter-proposal
   ... concern: frankO and i work on caret and select tracking -
   doesn't need to be put to vote yet -- need to work out RTE issues
   ... dave singer agreed -- putting up for vote bad idea

   CS: too early to vote on 1
   ... ton of work to be done -- if say too early, chairs will say too
   late -- how to convince -- what is timeline?

   RS: have that issue, but hixie asked us to create 2 more things that
   obfuscate issue -- want magnification support, waiting on james
   graham to respond
   ... hixie has muddied the waters

   CS: chairs trying to clear air, rather than water
   ... too early to vote on magnification, when can we?

   RS: can't push a canvas RTE in a week

   CS: when can it be turned out?

   RS: before the end of the year

   CS: sounds like answer is december 2010

   RS: problem: more than RTE we need to look at -- have to support RTE
   and magnification
   ... solves problem of not having adom and nonav discussion

   CS: tactically, vote on adom nonav, imap but not number 4 (hixie's

   JS: thanks for clarity CS

   CS: rich, work on magnification and caret issues -- if chaals wants
   to push his issue that's up to him

   RS: hixie's suggestion has nothing to do with magnification - what
   is it a counterproposal for?

   CS: deals with sub-issue in number 1 about cursor tracking -- bad
   counter proposal, but not separate issue

   RS: go for it

   GJR: wonders about the form of the WBS survey - lately been negative
   feedback only

   <JF> +q

   MS: don't agree with GJR - if all one is doing is supporting doesn't
   carry weight - surveys not intended to be vote collections -
   supposed to contain set of compelling arguements and objections to
   any given proposal
   ... not intended to quash legitimate response - intended to try and
   get people to consider issues as thoughtfully as possible

   JF: how did chairs decide on this?

   MS: if you have something to add, can say "proposal is good" and add
   comments -- chairs use this for decisions

   JF: if 2 proposals how presented to chairs?
   ... no measure of consensus in HTML WG --

   MS: don't accept that characterization by any means
   ... chairs not evaluating popularity but strenghth of argument
   ... what they are doing is subjective, but they have been put into
   position to adjudicate decisions for group - only way HTML WG has
   found for consensus-building
   ... limitations to survey, agreed, but not only means chairs are
   using -- if read decisions, then you will see that

   JF: rather see call for consensus
   ... a lot of polls that want negative feedback

   JS: happy to communicate concern about survey decision policy
   working for best result of a11y in HTML5
   ... want all to know that we have regular communications with HTML
   chairs -- facillitators and domain leads meet regularly - topic on
   current agenda is possible enhancements to decision making

   GJR: my concern is why didn't the chairs consider the formal advice
   given by PFWG on longdesc in their decision?


Summary of Action Items

   [End of minutes]
Received on Thursday, 7 October 2010 16:23:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:55:46 UTC