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

Minutes: HTML Accessibility Task Force, 28 April 2011

From: Martin Kliehm <w3c@kliehm.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 18:16:54 +0200
Message-ID: <4DB992F6.90509@kliehm.com>
To: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>


HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference
28 Apr 2011


     John_Foliot, Janina_Sajka, Michael_Cooper, Gregory_Rosmaita, 
Judy_Brewer, Eric_Carlson, Martin_Kliehm, Rich_Schwerdtfeger
     Kenny_Johar, Laura_Carlson, Leonie_Watson, Silvia_Pfeiffer


         Subteam Reports: Media; Text; Canvas; ARIA Mappings; Bug Triage
         Last Call Timeline

<trackbot> Date: 28 April 2011

TOPIC: Subteam Reports: Media; Text; Canvas; ARIA Mappings; Bug Triage

JF: Working on ISSUE 152 (http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/152)

<JF> Minutes from yesterday's media sub-team call: 

JS: The chain of emails is confusing, working on multitrack with a 
change proposal. Most probably we'll be in time for Last Call.

<oedipus> media subteam actions in tracker: 

<oedipus> all issues and all actions for media subgroup tracker: 

JS: There are all kinds of alternative media (text, sign language etc.). 
Several standards organizations expect the W3C to provide a canonical 
list for these formats.

<oedipus> details on product Text (all issues and actions for text 
subgroup) http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/products/5/all

<oedipus> action items for Text Alternatives subgroup: 

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - items

<richardschwerdtfe> I have to drop off in 20 minutes

JB: The text alternative sub-team met last Monday. Spent most of the 
meeting talking about @alt validation. Rich and I provided an example, 
had a good discussion on that. In result several sub-questions got clearer.

JB: People are drafting proposals for these sub-questions. We'll discuss 
them next Monday.
... Working on a clarification mail; which would morph into a Formal 
Objection, though would be nice to be able to avoid that. Gregory 
working on @summary, others on other topics. The WAI CG has taken up the 
question in which WG @alt validation lives.

JF: Have been working on a meta-generator proposal, half way there.

<oedipus> text alternatives call monday at 1530h UTC in channel #text, 
zakim bridge for 90 minutes

JB: Would be good to achieve consensus among accessibility community 
before passing the results to the chairs.

Canvas Sub-Team report:

<oedipus> RichS on Bug 11239 and hixie's latest spec patch 

<oedipus> bug 11239 "Canvas support accessible caret tracking 
independent of Focus Ring tracking" 

RS: Submitted a proposal to the chairs. Ian Hickson took many editorial 
freedoms, changed steps, added methods. Going through these changes 
takes a lot of time. My concern is: the editor apparently thinks he can 
edit the proposal without former consensus. There are so many technical 
inconsistencies, also accessibility flaws where he ignores expert 
knowledge like we've seen in the past.

JB: One of the aspects of the HTML WG process is commit, then review. 
It's an exception in the W3C process. This seems to be causing ongoing 
problems and cycles of additional work.
... Rich, you are noting some technical errors, is that in the editors' 
work or the chairs' work?

RS: Editors work.
... When the editor introduces his own body of work without consensus on 
the group it slows down the work in other activities within the Task 
Force and other WGs, for example SVG.

JS: Communication often requires teleconferences, email and IRC are 
often insufficient. On the good side the media sub-group is an example 
where accessibility experts and browser engineers are working very well 

<JF> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11956

GR: In a side note, role="presentation" on the body element is currently 
valid--SteveF has filed a bug to limit use of role="presentation"

JB: Macej put a huge amount of thoughtful work into reviewing the 
comments on @alt, @figcaption was interesting because there were some 
new questions to explore.. The form of communication should be dialog 
rather than hierarchical decisions. We should watch the replies on the 
surveys closely.

<oedipus> often such things HAVE been discussed and exposed within HTML 
WG fora

JS: The problem with the surveys is that we don't know what the chairs 
are thinking, so a seemingly repetition might point to a detail that is 
clear to us that might be overlooked to the chairs. We do not know the 
context of their decisions until they are made, then we see where more 
information would have been needed.

<JF> +q

Sub-team: ARIA mapping:

RS: We have to do more work on tangible canvas, clickable regions, but 
that's rather post Last Call.

<oedipus> it still bothers me that the WHAT WG and W3C drafts diverge 
(they are, according to hixie, materially different)

JF: I am concerned about the bug that Steve filed [number?]

<richardschwerdtfe> sorry, dropping off

<JF> steve's bug on role=presentation: 

<JF> Bug 11956 - restrict use of role=presentation

<oedipus> s/bug 11956/bug 11956 

JB: There might be other issues that had been resolved but have been 
shifting afterwards. We need methods to monitor this.

JS: From time to time it might be necessary to re-read the whole spec.

JB: I believe there are a couple of weeks in the Last Call process to 
allow for re-reading of a stable version.

<oedipus> timeline to last call: 

<oedipus> "April 22, 2011 - all issues resolved; LC resolution presented 
to group Consequences of missing this date: this would be solely a 
failure by the chairs, so we would publicly eat crow and plot a new date."

<oedipus> (1 month)

<oedipus> "May 22, 2011 - fixable LC objections addressed; if all goes 
well, LC resolution carries Consequences of missing this date: try LC 
resolution again."

<JF> +q

<judy> judy thx gregory for the reminder of the timeline to last call 
schedule, and notes the explanations for april and may dates
Last Call Timeline

JB: I'm not speaking on behalf of the chairs, but I suggest that people 
look at the April 22 and May 22 date.

JF: Based on those two dates, it seems to me that they already missed on 
the April 22 date. We should request clarification on the date whether 
they have a revised agenda.

<oedipus> GJR notes that the only replies to the Timeline Announcement 
were replies from editors of HTML5 modules (including SteveF) confirming 
that their drafts will proceed in tandem with the main spec or not

JB: My impression is that they are very eager to meet those timelines. 
Regarding accessibility features there are still considerable concerns. 
I hope that clarification can address those concerns.

JF: There are a number of objections, and I was wondering which of these 
will be addressed. I'm not making any reproaches, I'm just curious which 
dates apply.

<oedipus> GJR believes that he and leonie watson are supposed to do a 
comprehensive review of HTML5 forms

<Zakim> oedipus, you wanted to say the editor's draft is a constatnly 
moving target -- review latest editor's draft or latest PWD?

JB: Division into specific sections made it possible to review the spec 
in reasonable parts.

GR: The spec as a moving target is a problem.

JB: We will address this issue.

Steve Faulkner agreed to scribe next week, although a number of us are 
involved in aface-to-face meeting.
Received on Thursday, 28 April 2011 16:18:19 UTC

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