- From: Gregory J. Rosmaita <oedipus@hicom.net>
- Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2010 17:23:09 +0100
- To: public-html-a11y@w3.org
aloha!
minutes from today's HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference can
be accessed as hypertext at:
http://www.w3.org/2010/10/07-html-a11y-minutes.html
as an IRC log at:
http://www.w3.org/2010/10/07-html-a11y-irc
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
telecon:
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
Agenda
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Oct/0297.html
See also: IRC log http://www.w3.org/2010/10/07-html-a11y-irc
Attendees
Present
Everett_Zufelt, Gregory_Rosmaita, Janina, Janina_Sajka,
John_Foliot, Michael_Cooper, Mike, Rich, kliehm,
Cynthia_Shelly
Regrets
Laura_Carlson, Denis_Boudreau, Kenny_Johar, Joshue_O'Connor
Chair
Janina_Sajka
Scribe
Rich
Contents
* 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
discussions?
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
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/open
<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
discussion
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?
Actions
<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
closed
<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 --
OPEN
<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
already
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
ourselves
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
longdesc
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
deadline
oedipus: I have opened bug 10853 on the generic concept of a verbose
descriptor
<JF> +q
oedipus: we could put in a native describedby
<oedipus>
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Verbose_desc_reqs#Satisfying_These_Requirements_for_HTML5
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
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
battle?
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
questions
... 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
NO
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
suggestion)
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?
[ADJOURNED]
Summary of Action Items
[End of minutes]
_________________________________________________________
Received on Thursday, 7 October 2010 16:23:47 UTC