W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > April 2011

minutes: HTML Accessibility Task Force Telecon 2011-04-21

From: Gregory J. Rosmaita <oedipus@hicom.net>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 17:39:35 +0100
To: public-html-a11y@w3.org
Message-Id: <20110421163730.M62988@hicom.net>

big thanks to Leonie Watson for performing 99.9% of the minuting
at today's HTML A11y TF telecon, minutes of which are available
as hypertext at:


as an IRC log from:


and as plain text following this announcement -- as usual, please
report any errors, omissions, clarifications, mis-attributions 
and the like by replying-to this announcement on-list...

                               - DRAFT -

             HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

21 Apr 2011


   See also: IRC log - http://www.w3.org/2011/04/21-html-a11y-irc


          Cynthia_Shelly, Sam, Gregory_Rosmaita, Judy, John_Foliot,
          Eric_Carlson, Steve_Faulkner, Paul_Cotton,
          Rich_Schwerdtfeger, Michael_Cooper

          Janina_Sajka, Laura_Carlson, Silvia_Pfieffer, Marco_Ranon




     * Topics
         1. Media sub team issue 152 multitrack
         2. Issue 131 carat location
         3. Status report text sub team
         4. Steve Faulkner Issue Follow-Up
     * Summary of Action Items

   <MikeSmith> trackbot, start meeting

   <trackbot> Date: 21 April 2011

   <MikeSmith> Zakim, who's on the phone?

   <MikeSmith> Zakim, who's on the phone?

   MS: change proposal deadline tomorrow 22 April 2011

   <Leonie_Watson> scribe: Leonie_Watson

   <paulc> Deadlines are always midnight Boston time on the date
   specified by the Chairs.

Media sub team issue 152 multitrack

   <oedipus> agenda:

   <oedipus> controller proposal from Media subgroup:

   JF: We had a productive meeting where there were a half dozen issues
   that were not in accordance with the WG spec.

   <paulc> it is NOT paulc since I am on another call

   <paulc> I am here so far only on Zakim

   JF: We have in the wiki four different change proposals. The
   agreement was that we would withdraw all but the fourth, which lines
   up with Ian's proposal.
   ... Sylvia Pfeiffer has drafted up a final version of the change
   proposal from the media sub team.

   <oedipus> proposed TF letter on issue-152:

   JF: There is some discussion about process, there are a couple of
   different ways forward including submitting bug reports against
   those issues or waiting another week.
   ... If we file this change proposal, that is the consencus way
   forward IMHO.
   ... We may not have unanimity, but I would say there is a majority
   ... Two 90min calls a week from everyone in the sub team is a real
   comittment to getting it right.

   MS: We don't have logistics in bugzilla for filing bugs against a
   change proposal. Doesn't mean it can't be done, but there would need
   to be some discussion.

   <richardschwerdtfe> good morning

   JF: The chairs gave us time to come up with a change proposal, we
   could treat that as a concensus resolution and that would be fine.
   Otherwise it's a change proposal against the spec and the next step
   would be to issue a straw poll and take that route.

   MS: It sounds like that's moved to where it needs to be for the
   deadline tomorrow.
   ... Who will actually be submitting the change propsal?

   JF: Sylvia is doing that, and if not I'm happy to take it on.

   <paulc> Ian's response:

   PC: I haven't seen anyone mention Ian's response - who suggested
   that all four proposals be withdrawn. Can someone elucidate me?

   JB: We were looking at this in real time during the meeting, John
   also mentioned the other traffic that's been going on around this.
   Otherwise, we don't have an instant response on this one.

   JF: The difference betwen what Ian's written and what the media sub
   team think is half the sticking points we're dealing with. We
   wouldn't want to go forward with the four/five things missing that
   we think are important.

   <oedipus> silvia's proposed TF letter on issue-152:

   <oedipus> hixie's response to silvia on proposed letter for

   JF: Ian has been making changes throughout this process, when we
   started to look at the multitrack issue he didn't have anything in
   place. Now media controllers is the way he is moving forward. He's
   writing spec which is evolving, where as we have to work in more of
   a shadow/the wiki.

   JB: Is there a different approach you'd propose Paul?

   <oedipus> no matter what, this conversation should be happening in
   W3C fora not just in WHATWG space

   JF: I would rather Ian's proposal be classed as 4b and ours 4a.

   JB: So what might be a preferable approach for this?

   PC: Earlier someone said if we came down to having only one change
   proposal, the chairs would do a survey. I'm not worried where the
   proposal comes from. If there is just one, it's unlikely that the
   chairs would do a survey.

   JF: It boils down to this. We had multiple change proposals, reduced
   to one. If Ian is prepared to roll that into one proposal...

   PC: Sorry to interupt. It's possible someone else could object to
   the proposal, not just the chars. It's not a done deal because it
   comes from a sub team.

   <richardschwerdtfe> BRB

   <rubys> It would be easiest if Sylvia/JF were to write a CP; if Ian
   adopts that, we can call for consensus; otherwise we can do a
   survey. I can help Sylvia and/or JF offline.

   JB: The conversation shouldn't be characterised in this way. Given
   that this group has been working hard on this issue, we would prefer
   you survey our change proposal. I understand it gets complicated,
   but if you have a choice of which proposals to survey, a lot of
   people would appreciate it being the sub team proposal.

   <JF> +q

   PC: If Ian has spec text not reflected in his original change
   proposal, asking him to change his change proposal is asking him to
   reapply the work he's done in the WATWG spec back again.PC: I think
   I undersMC:

   <richardschwerdtfe> back

   SR: It would be easiest if Sylvia/John could send in the change
   proposal, or we could do a survey. I'd be happy to help offline.

   JF: We're probably within 10% of each other I think. If Ian accepts
   the proposal from the sub team, then we would be aligned and the
   chairs could adopt this and we could all move forward. Otherwise
   there will be two change proposals with minimal differences.

   SR: To make it more simple, submit it as a change proposal. If Ian
   accepts it we call for consensus, if not we'll call a survey.

   JB: +1 to SR.

Issue 131 carat location

   <oedipus> canvas updates in response to chairs request for
   clarification on issue 131:

   <rubys> s/we're good/we call for consensus/

   RS: All aspects of the change proposal were accepted, but there were
   a couple of points that were missed in relation to 508 that I
   responded to.
   ... I responded to a request from SR yesterday, he may have
   responded but I haven't seen yet.

   SR: We're waiting for an action from the chairs, and I haven't
   responded yet.

Status report text sub team

   <MikeSmith> http://www.w3.org/2011/04/18-text-minutes.html

   JB: Text meets on Monday EST 11am. We started with alt text,
   longdesc and poster and will likely add at least two/three more
   issues based on rejections.

   <MikeSmith> note that IRC channel for the Text Alternatives subteam
   calls i #text

   JB: We spent the first meeting dicussing organisation, commonalities
   and misunderstandings that appear to crop up. We looked at
   differences of perspective on certain topics, such as the potential
   for ARIA to make up for AT gaps.

Steve Faulkner Issue Follow-Up

   SF: The two issues I was responding to were title being conforming
   without alt on images, and I've posted a number of emails about
   ... I've emailed with points of clarification, and also to ask
   browser vendors to give their input. I've had one response from

   <oedipus> that damn hidden metadata!

   JB: SF asked for this issue to be brought into the sub group and I
   think it will be welcomed there.

   RS: Would tht be considered new information we need to give to the

   <rubys> paulc: +1

   <JF> +q

   PC: Why wasn't this issue mentioned originally?PC: Wh

   <rubys> related: this is excellent:

   JB: There are many types of evidence and it's not always possible to
   include it all. Now we know one of the gaps in the infomration.

   <oedipus> the @title insufficiency has been extensively discussed in
   the WAI and wider a11y-community -- we can only give you info, can't
   force you to read it

   PC: There seems to be a strong misunderstanding. The chairs only
   look at the evidence within the survey. We don't look outside of

   PC; When I asked why this information wasn't included, I got a
   reasonable answer. The reason I asked was because if you think the
   chairs are supposed to take evidence that was never on the table, we
   don't do that.

   <oedipus> it is NOT "magic evidence"

   JB: I'm not assuming that the chairs have magic knowledge, nor that
   the people responding on behalf of specific a11y needs have any
   magic understanding either. If there is some tolerance for
   understanding on both sides... We may not be able to guess
   everything you need to understand fully.

   <paulc> For the record, the Chairs evaluate the information provided
   in the survey. We do not consider material that is NOT provided in
   the survey. If we did the process would be completely arbitrary.

   <oedipus> paulc, are you saying that only surveys carry weight with
   the chairs? rejection of comments on survey strike me as EXTREMELY

   JF: The reason the TF was created was to bring together domain
   experts. We may not be aware of what Paul calls magic evidence, but
   we are experts in the subject matter and when we speak with one
   voice, if the expertise is ddiscounted... what are we doing?
   ... WYou don't want us to waste your time, we don't want our time
   wasted. We bring our knowledge to the table, and when it comes to
   accessibility our expertise isn't accepted in the way it is for
   other areas of expertise/knowledge.

   <paulc> We do not ask for a list of ALL things that break. We ask
   for evidence of which can be examples of breakage. We are not asking
   for ALL examples.

   <MikeSmith> ack [Microsoft]

   <paulc> And ALL the FOs are NOT about A11Y issues.

   CS: Does this piece cover the meta generator as conforming?


   <JF> 60% of the FO's are accessibility related


   <JF> 3 of 5

   SF: No, both my objections were reactions to things that made my
   brain fry. I'm not adverse to finding other routes to a slution.

   <paulc> JF said ALL and that is simply NOT true.

   <JF> and I am looking to file an FO against the generator issue

   CS: It seems like a bigger issue to me.

   <paulc> Thank you for the links, Sam.

   <Zakim> oedipus, you wanted to ask paulc what do the chairs do
   between the surveys, and why are most survey comments summarily

   GJR: What do the editors do between the surveys? How can you say you
   only concentrate on the surveys when it seems that the majority of
   survey comments are rejected?

   JB: I'm hoping we can use the sub group consutructively.

   <rubys> I suggest that people look at this decision as a good

   PC: I believe we should help people understand the working group
   decisions that are made. It might be helpful to take a couple of
   examples and explain them in more detail to a few members.

   <oedipus> this is about accessibility, NOT about polling,
   popularity, or theory

   PC: We try to find the least amount of dissent. In many cases the
   reasons why our positions are taken to be weaker, is that there is
   no evidence given

   <oedipus> accessibility is non-negotiable -- it is a mandate from
   the director (see foundational documents for WAI)

   <rubys> On issue-130, Rich didn't simply say "because I know what I
   am talking about", but said "because it breaks gmail, facebook,
   yahoo mail, numerous IBM applications"

   <paulc> Gregory: I am travelling this week in UK but would be
   willing to get on the phone with you and other next week when I land
   back in the NA.

   JB: One thing I was hoping to do in the sub group is draft a
   clarification reply, carefully consutructed. I'm wondering if the
   chairs might considr having the session focused on going through our
   draft? It might be a more positive discussion.

   <oedipus> paulc, i would appreciate that -- my eddress is

   <rubys> +1 to judy

   <Zakim> oedipus, you wanted to ask if common sense and logic have
   any place in the HTML WG process? sounds like it is survey-driven,
   and that cookie-cutter approach doesn't work -- these

   <JF> +q

   PC: I don't think our problem is the issues at hand, but I think we
   have a severe problem with some people's willingness to respond to a
   survey. Judy mentioned solving 5 problems, I think it's more like
   solving 100 problems. Judy and I are on the same page, she's looking
   at it tactically for current issues, I'm looking at it strategically
   to support better survey participation in the future.

   JF: I think what we have here is a culture clash. On one hand
   technical/mechanical engineers and on the other
   accessibility/conceptual people. I don't have an easy answer, but it
   seems to me that if things appear to be unclear/ if our responses
   are too squishy, it would be good to try and make it better.

   RS: I think we need to try and focus on the details more. Let's just
   go work together and get it fixed.

   <paulc> +1 to what Richard said about the A11Y participants needed
   to give better evidence in future surveys

   JB: I appreciate Paul offering to go through things with us, and yes
   I am looking at things tactically at the moment.

   <oedipus> how can one provide evidence when one can only comment
   upon the survey?

   <paulc> 4 bank holidays in 9 days in the UK!!

   <MikeSmith> Steve will scribe next-next week

   <inserted> scribenick: oedipus

   MS: can SF scribe the week after next?

   <MikeSmith> adjourned

   SF: sure


Summary of Action Items

   [End of minutes]
Received on Thursday, 21 April 2011 16:40:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:55:54 UTC