- From: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
- Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 09:18:14 -0800 (PST)
- To: "'HTML Accessibility Task Force'" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <014a01cbc946$7f97f570$7ec7e050$@edu>
The minutes from the 10 February 2011 HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference can be accessed as hypertext from: http://www.w3.org/2011/02/10-html-a11y-minutes.html ...and as plain text following this announcement -- as usual, please report any errors, clarifications, mis-attributions, and the like by replying-to this announcement on-list JF ***** HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference 10 Feb 2011 Agenda See also: IRC log Attendees Present +1.510.367.aaaa, +1.650.468.aabb, Michael_Cooper, paulc, Eric_Carlson, John_Foliot, Steve_Faulkner, Janina_Sajka, Jon_Gunderson, Marco_Ranon, Rich, Cynthia_Shelly Regrets Léonie_Watson, Denis_Boudreau, Laura_Carlson Chair Janina_Sajka & Mike_Smith Scribe Stevef Contents Topics Summary of Action Items <trackbot> Date: 10 February 2011 <janina> Meeting: HTML-A11Y telecon <janina> agenda: this no review of subteam actions GJR will get to his action item later action 90 on m cooper not done <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - 90 action 93 - can be closed (drag and drop) <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - 93 <MichaelC> close action-93 <trackbot> ACTION-93 find someone to work on change proposal for drag and drop closed action 100 on janina unsure about what it is <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - 100 <MichaelC> close action-100 <trackbot> ACTION-100 - talk to Laura about decoupling of "what" from "where" in preparation for discussion in WAI CG closed janina- its complete modal attribute for aria action on gregory janina: we decide we were happy with it on ARIA, only JF: which path do we want to pursue on modal? <MichaelC> close action-102 <trackbot> ACTION-102 - draft request for reconsideration on Issue-30 closed MC: action on janina draft reconsideration on issue 30 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20090126 <MichaelC> action-103: seems to favour http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20090126 <trackbot> ACTION-103 Compare our WBS results to the 5 existing change proposals on alternative text, looking for best match. notes added <MichaelC> close action-103 <trackbot> ACTION-103 Compare our WBS results to the 5 existing change proposals on alternative text, looking for best match. closed subteam reports RS: google is implementing canvas subtree dom for chrome, will be adding focus ring support with caret not included, we have an upcoming poll on aria, so am working on that ... chrome was not working with main screen reader vendor, but now maki8ng good progres, chuck pritchard is developing cnavas editor RS; before ARIA industry went to build rich internet app, the problem we had was because developers need to do this, they were prohibited from selling to government, the only reason they couln't make it accessible beacuse the ability for authors to amke it accessble RS: hixie wants us to provide use cases for every possible use of html, authors have busieness reasons for doing these http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/issue-129-objection-poll/ RS: do we recommend that authors use standard controls as defined, YES, but if the author wants to go in and do soemthing accessibility should not be an inhibitor cynthia: one par of his argument has merit, one of the things he struggles with understanding, aria is fine with previous versions of \HTML, he thjinks he has solved the problem doesn't want to confuse thinsg with non native controls RS: in our change proposal and in ARIA it states that authors should use standard controls cynthiaL: should acknowledge there is an improvement <paulc> The survey on ISSUE-129 closes on Feb 17. Are others going to reply to the survey? <paulc> Steve's response is in: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ARIAinHTML5-hixiecounter RS: people can contribute to the group response or they can write their own paulc: update wiki to have support section johngund: who decides? paulc: chairs decide ... looking at strength of objections this is bad, but why johngund: concept that authors have free choice isn't a strong argument? paulc: no comment <JF> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Feb/0205.html JF: media, 2 issues left to resolve, 1. how to integrate multimedia content, sylvia has posted note about this ... there are 7 proposals about how to acheive this, sense of urgency, request for change proposal by 21st of mont janaina: claify this is for multiple binary resources jf: but agout identical resources ... 2 time stamp formats lining up, webvtt and SMPTE-TT, superset of timetext langauge ... should we say anyhting further or let market forces work it out marco: not a lot happening on the bug front <janina> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/InstateLongdesc#Suggested_A lternatives_Are_Not_Viable_Solutions janina: longdesc, theer is a lengthy proposal from laura, intended to function as a request to reconsider longdesc janaina: thinks its substantive, needs furtehjr tweaking janina: thinks wai cg needs to be canvassed about this jf: one note, epub working group looking at html5, want to wait before developing a solution, but may bake their own if nothing comes out paulc: won't say epub group doesn't want soultions to issues, but thinks last call tiemframe is fine Correct and Improve <img> Conformance Checker Guidance http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20090126 <JF> SF: People want to have a number of requirements, and don't want others <JF> which the second option (url posted) seems to cover most of it <JF> there is a difference between the machine check-able content, and then content that is not machine-checkable <JF> (This is all related to Issue 31) <JF> there are 3 main parts to Issue 31 <JF> guidance to validation tools <JF> image element definition verbiage - what is the source <JF> the normative content <JF> 3rd issues - text alternatives and their values http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElementSurveyConformaceC hoices <JF> all of this information is in the link provided by steve <JF> JS: by memory, option 2 aligns with the consensus from this group, WAI, etc. <JF> JS: the second issue raised by Laura, is also covered by the WAI consensus postion, that guidance and techniques be under the WAI <JF> where people go to look for that kind of guidance <JF> as opposed to where they look for machine conformance guidance <JF> This is on the WAI CG agenda, but has not yet been discussed by that group <JF> but has not yet been addressed <JF> SF: we need to decide on a time line that is acceptable to the WG Chairs <JF> JS: is there any opposition to splitting this out this way? <JF> JS: seems we are on the right track here <JF> SF: if we do agree on this as a group (or as individuals) we should be reviewing this to ensure that we have robust arguments for the points we are in support of <JF> JS: this is the purpose of the survey
Received on Thursday, 10 February 2011 17:18:48 UTC