- From: Martin Kliehm <w3c@kliehm.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 18:36:49 +0100
- To: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/2011/02/17-html-a11y-minutes.html
- DRAFT -
HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference
17 Feb 2011
Agenda:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Feb/0154.html
Attendees:
Present
Cynthia_Shelly, Gregory_Rosmaita, Janina_Sajka, John_Foliot,
Léonie_Watson, Michael_Cooper, Mike_Smith, Rich_Schwerdtfeger,
Martin_Kliehm, Paul_Cotton
Regrets
Marco_Ranon, Laura_Carlson
Chair
Janina_Sajka
Scribe
Martin_Kliehm
Contents
* Topics
1. Actions Review
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/open
2. Is ARIA Normative for HTML5?
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11892
3. Issue-30 longdesc--Updates?
4. ISSUE-122
TOPIC: Actions Review
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/open
MC: Action-22 Testing sub-team is moving forward in particular in the
ARIA field
<oedipus> issue-134?
<trackbot> ISSUE-134 does not exist
<oedipus> GJR: keep action open -- will complete today and alert list
<MichaelC> action-101 due 3 March
<trackbot> ACTION-101 - email ARIA Caucus to request a "modal" attribute
for ARIA due date now 3 March
<janina> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11892
<oedipus> action-104?
<trackbot> ACTION-104 -- Frank Olivier to post question to HTML working
group on whether to limit HTML elements in non-visible content such as
the Canvas fallback content -- due 2011-02-14 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/104
TOPIC: Is ARIA Normative for HTML5?
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11892
RS/JS: Would inclusion of ARIA in HTML spec inhibit the extensibility of
the ARIA spec?
RS: I think they should be normative.
<oedipus> propose that we de-couple ARIA qua ARIA from EVERY markup
language -- the concepts have to sync so that A11y APIs know what to do
<Zakim> oedipus, you wanted to say that HTML5 annotations for a11y
content should be based on ARIA concepts, but not be bound to a specific
release of ARIA
MS: Integrating things into HTML requires a binding to the HTML spec. If
we take SVG and MathML, which are kind of an exception because they also
have elements, the SVG group had concerns that SVG would only work in
browsers, but not seperately in an SVG player. Though the player could
interpret HTML5. ARIA could take a similar approach.
<JF> +1 to oedipus
Gregory: I propose that we decouple ARIA from every languageso that it
stays extensible. ARIA will become better and better and avoids the trap
of being stuck in one particular spec.
MS: That would be the ideal solution, the question is whether it's possible.
... There's a formal objection that we need to have the ARIA attributes
defined, so there's a limit what you can decouple.
<oedipus> personally, i would MUCH rather have the annotations for a11y
content section removed and repopulated throughout the spec where
individual features are introduced/defined
<oedipus> agree about @role -- definitely MUST be native to HTML5
RS: There are examples like media queries that are fairly separate, so
it works. The lexical part could be normative, but others need to be
separate because they will continue to be developed.
... ARIA supports the accessibility APIs, but doesn't have any impact on
the standard function. So it's separate.
MS: I don't quite understand the design decisions behind the ARIA spec.
I had a similar problem with MathML where we had an element and asked
ourselves how it would be interpreted by ARIA. The answer was that by
design it was undefined so that other specs would be able to expand.
RS: If aria-grab=false indicates it's grabable, but false means it can't
be grabbed. If we didn't define it in ARIA, because of the design of
HTML5 attributes it would be impossible to set it to false. The
processing should be part of the host language, but it needs to be
coordinated.
... Anything else like custom strings is not an issue because you could
just define name-value pairs.
<MikeSmith> http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/elements.html#global-attributes
<MikeSmith>
http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/content-models.html#annotations-for-assistive-technology-products-aria
<oedipus> http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/elements.html#global-attributes
<MikeSmith> "Authors may use the ARIA role and aria-* attributes on HTML
elements"
<MikeSmith> "The following attributes are common to and may be specified
on all HTML elements (even those not defined in this specification):"
MS: If you take Ian's question in the bug report it asks where the
attributes should be defined.
RS: If external specs conflict with the host language like in the
example above that needs to be solved. That's a lexical processing. That
should allow ARIA to expand. If we introduce new ARIA roles in ARIA 2.0
we could define a "detail" role to reflect the new element in HTML5.
MS: I understand what Ian is asking, I'll respond.
<oedipus> should i file a bug against the spec to get
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/first_2_paragraphs_of_definition_of_img
into the spec?
<oedipus> Laura's Longdesc Reinstation Change Proposal:
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/InstateLongdesc
<oedipus> Verbose Descriptor Requirements:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/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
<oedipus> timeline to last call:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Sep/0074.html
<paulc> See
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Feb/0164.html
TOPIC: Issue-30 longdesc--Updates?
PC: Sam Ruby has talked to Laura. The problem is the deadline was
January, so the chance of re-opening was missed.
<Zakim> oedipus, you wanted to say this has been an "ISSUE" since the
chairs' decision last year
JF: There's a formal objection regarding longdesc. So before we clear
last call this needs to be addressed.
<JF> +q
MS: Confirming there's a formal objection.
<Zakim> oedipus, you wanted to day don't want to have to file formal
objection -- would rather work with the WG on getting the lack of
verbose descriptor addressed rather than push off to
JF: It's up to the chairs to decide about the procedure. In seeking
consensus I think addressing the issue now is easier.
GR: We tried to avoid a formal objection. The discussion has been going
on, a solution is at hand.
<JF> +1 to0 Janina's point
<paulc> There are already Last Call issues that are on the page that
lists all issues:
<paulc> http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/issue-status.html
<JF> +q
JS: In the past when a solution was at hand I understood that time
constraints were secondary.
... It's on the WAI agenda for the next meeting as well.
<oedipus> it isn't a matter of "principle" it is a matter of a HOLE in
the spec that has been repeatedly pointed out and has been the subject
of Change Proposals
<oedipus> this decision was draconian to remove longdesc without
equivalent or replacement
<paulc> See
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Feb/0052.html
PC: The Chairs have to be fairly principal because of the April/May time
table. We will have time constraints soon, so we don't want this to be a
precedent. We need to be fairly strict in the future.
<oedipus> we have followed the "lead" of the chairs and staff members in
addressing this issue -- it is not like others
GR: I disagree because it's not a matter of principal, but it's a hole
in the spec. It has been in HTML4 and has been removed. Something has to
be done to resolve that.
JS: The problem is a political problem. The issue has not been rejected,
it's been postponed.
<JF> +q
<oedipus> paul, if you go ahead with last call without LONGDESC you KNOW
you are going to get Formal Objections -- why not nip this in the bud by
addressing an actual need (articulated by WAI, HTML A11y TF, and EPUB/IDPF)
<oedipus> that's just semantic jive
PC: If Laura or other contributors were to send the material they have
today we believe we have enough evidence to re-open the issue. But it
would be a post-last call issue.
<oedipus> semantic jive
<JF> +q
PC: It's not unusual to draw the attention on sections of the spec in
Last Call so that they can be improved.
JS: The message being sent by publishing HTML5 without a prior solution
for the longdesc issue would be devastating.
<oedipus> timeline to last call:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Sep/0074.html
<JF> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Sep/0074.html
JF: The escalation after the deadline has happened in the form of the
formal objection.
<oedipus> there is an issue, a bug, and change proposals
<oedipus> paulc, the point is that we have tried in good faith to avoid
a formal objection by fixing what is broken (the lack of a verbose
description mechanism)
PC: I have discussed this with Sam whether the deadline was met because
of the issue being escalated before January 27, and we denied that.
Though we haven't spoken with Maciej yet.
<oedipus> we have tried to avoid formal objections on the ADVICE and
COUNSEL of the chairs
<oedipus> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/
<JF> W3C Process:
http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#WGArchiveMinorityViews
PC: I assume we can address that issue long before Last Call, it could
be as early as June.
<oedipus> the earlier the better...
JS: I believe we need to explain the process in the preamble so that we
do not alienate accessibility people.
<oedipus> verbose descriptor mechanism also needs to be addressed for
EPUB 3.0 in order for it to be compatible with HTML5
JF: There are two formal abjections...
JS: But that doesn't mean they will be addressed by the director before
Last Call.
<oedipus> qck oe
<Zakim> oedipus, you wanted to ask about the "single" chance to change
the chairs' decision
JF. We've been announcing this for a while, so it could have been on the
radar that there is a proposal in the making. It has been explained in
mails that even though the deadline has passed it could be reconsidered.
<oedipus> paulc was the first on the bridge
<oedipus> MikeSmith, you've been the one reminding us of a "single"
chance to have chairs' decision reopened -- can you clarify?
PC: In the W3C culture there's no "single chance." The process is if new
compelling evidence is put on the table issues can be re-opened or
amended anytime. This has happened many times in the past.
MS: I agree with Paul. There's nothing in the process that limits a
proposal to one shot.
<oedipus> we DO NOT WANT to have to file a formal objection -- we are
trying to work with the WG and the chairs and the editor
MS: Also the director can push it back to the WG.
<oedipus> this was a BAD decision, taken too hastily
<JF> +q
MS: I support whatever the chairs decide because I trust them to make
decisions in good faith. We need to keep a positive and constructive dialog.
JF: It's frustrating to find the deadline of January 27 blocking a
solution at this time because it hasn't been communicated clearly.
<oedipus> we've been trying to "advance" this issue under the guidance
of the chairs and facilitators -- the decision made by the chairs was
faulty because it removed something added to HTML4 SPECIFICALLY to
address a need without recognizing that a hole was thereby created in
HTML that must be fixed by an equivalent or superior mechanism
<oedipus> that is a bad decision, regardless of one's opinion of "policy"
MS: When the chairs choose to allow issues to be re-opened and
re-escalated to the group it's their decision. The chairs will continue
to be under pressure to meet the Last Call deadline, so we need to
respect the decision.
GR: This is different because longdesc has been added to HTML4 by
request of the director and has been arbitrarily removed by the editor.
MS: The technical issue is out of question, it's a procedural question.
JF: The decision is going to anger many people and I'd preferred to draw
it back.
<oedipus> we dont want to wait 2 years -- we've already waited too long
to address these issues and their importance
JS: Do not over-estimate the power of a formal objection. It doesn't
mean that the issue will be addressed soon, it could be in two years.
We're not talking about going to CR yet.
<oedipus> plus 1 to JF
In my personal opinion it won't be the only Last Call anyway.
<oedipus> closed with EXTREME prejudice
<paulc> Agree, I expect as 2 Last Calls
JF: [repeating the above]
<paulc> Agree, I expect at least 2 Last Calls
<oedipus> HTML5 is being implemented by fiat -- that is the source of
urgency
JS: If we rely on a formal objection, why do we discuss about it today?
... Going to CR is far in the future.
JF: The longdesc issue was raised in 2008. The chairs told us the issue
could be re-opened. A lot of work and effort has been going into it. Now
we're being told it's too late. That's disappointing.
<oedipus>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Aug/att-0112/issue-30-decision.html
<oedipus> Verbose Descriptor Requirements:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/verbose_desc_reqs
<oedipus> Laura's Longdesc Reinstation Change Proposal:
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/InstateLongdesc
<oedipus> HTML WG Bug 10853 - HTML5 lacks a verbose description
mechanism: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10853
PC: The chairs didn't say when the issue would be re-opened. It will be
addressed. I admit the January date could have been communicated better.
I understand your frustration. When we are going to re-open the issue we
still want the Accessibility TF to spend their resources on the other,
pre-Last Call issues.
JS: The problem is how it will be interpreted in the accessibility
community. I don't think that it's good to postpone the issue, so I
would like to emphasize the requirement to communicate the basis for the
decision clearly.
<Zakim> oedipus, you wanted to ask if we can talk a bit about ISSUE-122
before we part?
TOPIC: ISSUE-122
<oedipus>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Feb/0163.html
<oedipus> At the HTML WG's TPAC 2010 Face2Face meeting, agreement was
reached that the first two paragraphs of the definition of img should be:
<oedipus> sentence 1: An img element represents an image.
<oedipus> sentence 2: The image given by the src attribute is the
embedded content; the value of the alt attribute provides equivalent
content for those who cannot process images or who have image loading
disabled.
GR. There are two issues. At TPAC we decided to start with the smaller
issue, changing the wording above.
<JF> "We stated that the issue can be reopened if one or more of these
conditions are met."
<JF> Sam Ruby - Jan 6, 2001
PC: If there are more concerns I'm open to discuss longdesc in personal
mail.
Received on Thursday, 17 February 2011 17:37:34 UTC