- From: Gregory J. Rosmaita <oedipus@hicom.net>
- Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 17:29:23 +0100
- To: public-html-a11y@w3.org
aloha!
minutes from the 7 April 2011 HTML Accessibility Task Force
Teleconference can be accessed as hypertext from:
http://www.w3.org/2011/04/07-html-a11y-minutes.html
as an IRC log at:
http://www.w3.org/2011/04/07-html-a11y-irc
and as plain text following this announcement -- as usual, please
log any errors, clarifications, mis-attributions and the like by
replying-to this announcement on-list...
thanks to SteveF for performing the vast bulk of the minuting;
volunteers to scribe will now be solicited at the end of
teleconferences a week in advance, so as to expedite the
commencement of TF meetings...
_________________________________________________________
- DRAFT -
HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference
07 Apr 2011
Agenda
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Apr/0041.html
See also: IRC log - http://www.w3.org/2011/04/07-html-a11y-irc
Attendees
Present
Cynthia_Shelly, Eric_Carlson, Gregory_Rosmaita, Janina_Sajka,
John_Foliot, Judy, Léonie_Watson, MRanon, Michael_Cooper,
Mike, Rich, Steve_Faulkner
Regrets
Laura_Carlson, Denis_Boudreau
Chair
MikeSmith
Scribe
Stevef, oedipus
Contents
* Topics
1. Agenda Review
2. Canvas Subteam Report
3. Bug Triage Report
4. media subteam report
5. ARIA Mappijng Report
6. @summary for TABLE
7. Scribe for Nest Week's Call
* Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
<trackbot> Date: 07 April 2011
Agenda Review
<inserted> scribenick: Stevef
MS: not too much agenda one is talk about 1st public working draft
for API ammping doc
JS: wants to talk about @summary
JB: maybe talk about @poster decision
<oedipus> plus 1 to poster
MS: any other suggestions?
... hearing none
video poster issue 142
<oedipus> HTML Working Group Decision on ISSUE-32 table-summary:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0091.html
MS: lets not cover hgroup today
... put mit on agendum for now and will be on for next week
Canvas Subteam Report
MS: canvas subteam, only a few people on the call right?
RS: only a few on the call, usuallu only a few
... waiting on chairs decision on issue 133, thinks we are in good
shpe, depends on chahirs, other issue how do we get bounding
rectangles on objects so that magnifiers can identify
<oedipus> use of clickableregions to feed bounding examples:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-canvas-
api/2011JanMar/0090.html
RS: not retained graphics in canvas, required for solid hit testing
vehicle to drive AT support
<oedipus>
http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/issue-131-objection-poll/results
RS: example shows that to get around this developers use multiple
canvas objects ugly
<oedipus> minutes of canvas call 2011-04-04
http://www.w3.org/2011/04/04-html-a11y-minutes.html
RS: svg is having drawing path, canvas needs one to, have sent ian
use cases, waiting to hear back, once we have hittesting will be
able to drive accessibility
MS: canvas is not retained mode by design, feature not shortcoming
<oedipus> ever heard of unforseen consequences
MS: essentially this can be seen as canvas being made into something
it was nevr intended for, any response?
<oedipus> a11y is often the "canary in the coal mine" when it comes
to "standard" architectures
RS: understand apples intenet for canvas, but reality entirely
different, unlike svg most people doing desktop apps usnderstand
canvas, they wiil/are using canvas to cerate applications, so from
a11y perspective at the end of the day still have to have access to
it, for a11y need fetaures built in
<oedipus> profiles was feedback from the TV industry at TPAC 2010
HTML WG F2F
RS: at last tpac set top manufacturers said sweet spot for html5
will be canvas + JS
... whats happeneing is not what was intended need to take this into
account
MS: this is not an incremental; change its fundemental change to
architecture of canvas implementaion, is it necessary and why?
... what will they gain?
RS: do we have to do a full blown reatined mode? I don't think we
do, only needed for hot testing
MS: probably said enough for now, have enough info to go forward
JF: canvas + JS thanks
RS: ian highlighted need to develope solution not just for
accessibility, hiti testing does that
... not askin g for all, just enough to support a11y
<oedipus> hit-testing is needed by AT devs -- they asked for it
RS: put in a very simple hit testing stratgey on top of canvas
without having to have full retained mode
MS: bug triage next, mike, marco, martin?
Bug Triage Report
MC: not much done,in last few weeks
<oedipus> plus 1 to big thanks to bug triage team
MS: letting things queue up a bit due to last call
... bug triage team greta job!
... no urgency
OK thanks
media subteam report
<oedipus> media telecon minutes from 2011-04-06
http://www.w3.org/2011/04/06-html-a11y-minutes.html
JF: focused on vexing issue 152, multitrack API, chairs granted
extension, have 3-4 solid proposals with fundemantal differences,
still talking issues through
... lot of discussion about Ian's mediacontroller proposal,
discussion about master timeline, still dissecting options, will be
having to con calls a week for the next few weeks, convey our sense
of urgency to chairs please mike
... resolution critical to last call
... general feeling is that calls are productive
MS: you sid it would be extremely problematic if we get it reoslved
prior to last call,
JF: if we can't do it we cannot provide sign language captions
MS: does not mean we won't vere have it but not just before last
call
JF: if it goes into last call without then the htnl5 spec will not
be complete
<Zakim> judy, you wanted to further clarify for Mike
MS: HTML WG or W3C process does not require it to be complete before
going to last call
<oedipus> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/
JB: people feel that significant requirement will niot be met if
certain requirements are not in the spec, multitrack is something
that is needed to meet the crieria of being feature complete before
last call
... if there was progress before last call, the co-chairs asserted
that they would not stand on formality, thats why people are working
hjard to get consensus before last call
<MikeSmith> I don't accept the assertion that not having this
decided by start of LC will compromise progress of implementations
during the coming year
JB: one of the reasons why the last call timimg is of concern, is as
we all know it is being implemented as it involves, not having
stable multitrack will comprimise implementations in the coming
year, thinks track it is one now is making gopod progress so should
not be an issue
<Zakim> MikeSmith, you wanted to say that this is not a "must"
requirement in the process document, and the WG chairs have
discretion to determine LC process for their groups
<JF> +q
<oedipus>
http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#Reports
<oedipus>
http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#rec-advance
<oedipus> this is similar to canvas -- it is being implemented NOW
by fiat without a11y isxues addressed, and it is MUCH harder to
address a11y after-the-fact than building it in from the start
MS: prcess doc does not say the spec has to be feature complete,
gives WG chairs discretion, which is what the HTML chairs are doing,
also do not agree that it will comprimise implementation in the
coming year regardless ofif this gets decided before LC
... if we try to force resolution before lC could be a problem, we
have people working together, on the path to resolution
JF: moving to alst call will we continue to get heartbeat udpates
during last call? after may 22nd
<oedipus>
http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#maturity-levels
MS: its up to html wg chairs for publication, they feel strongly
about heartbeat requirements, feel they will be pushing to continue
. also implementors will work from editors draft not stable spec
... what authors of books and turorials do we can't have control
over
JF: so impelemntors have control?
<Zakim> oedipus, you wanted to say that 1 problem is blind obedience
to "WG process" -- canvas a11y work was a specific task of Canvas
Subteam, there should have been no call for
MS: yes implementors have control over wehat goes into the spec
Gregory: disagree with process
MS: need to take it up with the chairs
... talke it up on the html call/mailing list
<JF> You can have Quality, On budget, and On Time - pick 2
<JF> +1 to Judy
MS: affects us but we cannot do anything about it in the a11 task
force
<oedipus> plus 1 to judy -- W3C process different from "WG process"
set up by chairs, but they are following cookie-cutter process which
is detrimental to development of spec
JB: it may be useful to refer to 2 different levels of process 1.
w3c process protective of accessibility , html wg microprocess
directs them to issue call for proposal even on areas that have been
worked on by taskforces
<oedipus>
http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#maturity-levels
JB: we have disagreements amongst w3c reps in regards to feature
completeness. disagree on interpretation of feature completeness
... have several items in a11y area now where it may need a forma
objection. one of the process things that is very clear if you
disagree there are steps to object
would,like to get groups disagreement documented
<eric_carlson> minus 1 to Judy -- giving *any* group of experts
absolute authority is a bad idea
<JF> @ eric_carlson - as opposed to allowing uninformed participants
steam-roller issues that harms real accessibility?
JB: my sense is moving things that are stuck, may be usefulto get a
more focused discussion, form subgroup to develop propsoal aroun alt
issues
<oedipus> eric_carlson, we aren't asking for absolute authority --
only that the HTML WG and chairs recognize that accessibility is the
specific focus of the TF and the WAI and that info from those fora
deserve to be listened to and not told that our use cases concern
someone's mother-in-law (see last week's statement by paulc)
JB: media current status, support from co-chairs, not stand on
ceremony if progress to consensus
ARIA Mappijng Report
<oedipus> MS: summary of where subgroup is at?
<oedipus> SF: haven't had meetings due to other work and due to work
assigned at SD f2f
<JF> +q
<oedipus> SF: 2 areas of work: 1 writing text for definition of
@role and aria attributes in HTML5 -- will ocur during last call
<oedipus> SF: 2. HTML-A11y-API doc -- emailing those concerned to
get more fomal process to work on document -- a lot of work -- need
others' involvement
<oedipus> SF: HTML-A11y API mapping document will get more attention
once the aria-in-html work is done
<oedipus> CS: should see progress in 2 weeks time
<oedipus> MS: announced on list consensus for FPWD of A11y APIs
<oedipus> MS: waing for chairs to send request for transition to plh
MS: paul said we had consensus for html accessibility API guide to
be publsihed as FPWD
<oedipus> MS: waiting for comm team to get frist FPWD published --
maybe tuesday or thursday this week
oedipus: can you scribe now as i gotta go soon/
@summary for TABLE
<oedipus> HTML Working Group Decision on ISSUE-32 table-summary:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0091.html
<inserted> scribenick: oedipus
JB: assume everyone on call has read WG decision
[general yeses]
JB: yes or no question: do people feel that HTML5 is feature
complete without @summary for TABLE
SF: yes
GJR: no
JS: no
JF: no
CS: can live with it (actgually, without it in HTML5)
RS: my take on @sumjmary -- advantages to saying can do same things
with ARIA that is cross-platform
... some advantages to control what we provide in host langauges --
have to do if summary out or not
<JF> +q
JB: do people feel co-chairs decision on table summary showed full
understanding of the accessibility issues and accessiblity in
general
<Stevef> SF:yes
GJR: no definitely not
JF: hixie posted to mailing list that ARIA only for A11y API mapping
... hixie claims aria only affects a11y API mappings and only for
ATs
RS: design is interoperability for AT
JF: quotes from hixie
... decision for TABLE summary is wrong because says use ARIA to fix
all problems
... goes in wrong direction
RS: alt is also used when turn graphics off -- alt text would be
rendered in content, so has additional functionality
... doesn't apply to @summary
... could do same thing through A11y API
... some ATs will use DOM -- get same static info
JF: looks like trying to use conformance checkers to undue existing
attributes in HTML4/XHTML1
... what is practical impact of removing @summary for TABLE from
HTML5?
RS: if comes out, need to provide WCAG 2.0 techs to deliver what
summary does today -- how to do with ARIA
... don't worry about conformance checkers -- most content today is
all rendered on client and conformance checker would miss that --
A11y test tools test dynamic content -- can tell if @summary or
aria-label missing
... validators today miss most of today's web content
JB: may need a subteam to look at mulitple issues concerning
alternate descriptions of content -- several appear to be lacking --
rejected or lack of understanding of rationale by chairs
<MikeSmith> before we adjourn, is there anybody please who can
volunteer to scribe for next week's call?
JB: on @longdesc concerned that TF role a bit confused -- subgroup
could stablize and champion propsal
JS: have action to write up use cases to write up -- should take
LC's proposal to TF and work on it from there
<Zakim> oedipus, you wanted to say @summary cannot be "pushed-off"
onto ARIA -- what about thosee who don't use AT
<judy> JB asks who's interested in sub-group on alternative
descriptions? perhaps people can start expressing interest in irc
now?
<JF> Judy - add me
<JF> +1 to greg
GJR: the chairs have removed a feature of HTML added EXPRESSLY to
increase accessibility--this should NOT have been done without
acknowledging the need/use cases clearly articulated from those who
directly benefit from @summary--can we perhaps have a PF/WAI finding
that all markup introduced to HTML4 expressly for accessibility MUST
either be equaled or improved by HTML5, which means not judging
such markup by "standard" web metrics;
Scribe for Nest Week's Call
JB: best to rotate --
judy, micheal has a scribe rotation list
MS: anything else need to do before adjournment?
<MikeSmith> adjourned
<richardschwerdtfe> Judy: sure I would be happy to participate in
subteams on some of the issues such as text equivalents
Summary of Action Items
[End of minutes]
_________________________________________________________
Received on Thursday, 7 April 2011 16:29:50 UTC