- From: Gregory J. Rosmaita <oedipus@hicom.net>
- Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 17:35:52 +0000
- To: public-html-a11y@w3.org
- Message-Id: <20110120173440.M82806@hicom.net>
aloha!
minutes from today's HTML A11y TF telecon are available as hypertext
from
http://www.w3.org/2011/01/20-html-a11y-minutes.html
as an IRC log at:
http://www.w3.org/2011/01/20-html-a11y-irc
and as plain text following this announcement -- as usual, please report
any errors, omissions, mis-attributions, clarifications, and the like
by replying-to this announcement on-list...
thanks to SteveF for scribing today's call and a reminder: January 22,
2011 is the cut-off for escalating bugs for pre-LC consideration--issues
should be entered into the WG tracker and calls for proposals issued by
this date should be fulfilled. Consequences of missing this date: any
further escalations will be treated as a Last Call comment
(consult: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/LastCallTimeline)
_________________________________________________________
- DRAFT -
HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference
20 Jan 2011
Agenda
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Jan/0201.html
See also: IRC log - http://www.w3.org/2011/01/20-html-a11y-irc
Attendees
Present
John_Foliot, Gregory_Rosmaita, Mike, Janina, Eric_Carlson,
Michael_Cooper, paulc, Rich_Schwerdtfeger, Sean_Hayes,
kliehm, Cynthia_Shelly
Regrets
Laura_Carlson, Marco_Ranon, Léonie_Watson, Kenny_Johar,
Joshue_O'Connor, Silvia_Pfieffer, Leonie_Watson
Chair
Mike_Smith
Scribe
oedipus, Stevef
Contents
* Topics
1. Face to Face
2. Survey on Text Alternatives
3. Canvas Sub-Team Report
4. ARIA Mapping Sub-Team Report
5. Bug-Triage Sub-Team Update
6. Timeline to Last Call
* Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
<trackbot> Date: 20 January 2011
<paulc> Trying to join on Zakim, but my machine has been asleep for
3 weeks and it is taking some time to get going today!
<paulc> No sympathy requested or expected.
<MikeSmith>
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/index.php?title=Scribe_List
Face to Face
<inserted> scribenick: oedipus
RS: mike are you coming?
MS: travelling to cambridge to meet with administration/management
-- may stay in U.S. for couple of weeks
... probably need to figure out travel and plan on attending
JS: hoping that PaulC could attend
MS: would be in San Diego
PC: in Ottowa
... been gone for 3 weeks - -have to catch up -- exact dates?
JS: 19 and 20 March 2011 (Saturday/Sunday)
PC: week aftger SXSW
JS: yes, venue and date due to CSUN conferenfce
<MikeSmith> scribenick: oedipus
PC: will get back to JS and MS on attendance -- would seriously like
to attend -- may be going to SXSW -- have to coordinate
<MikeSmith> Confirmed Face to Face meeting of HTML Accessibility
Task Force
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Jan/0148.html
MS: MCooper posted details to list confirming times and dates and
location
... anything new MCooper?
MC: meeting page without full info yet
<MichaelC> Face to Face meeting page
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/ftf_2011-03
MC: assumption is will be in meeting room of Hyatt in San Diego --
not confirmed -- up to host
... create registration survey and post to public-html-a11y
Survey on Text Alternatives
<MikeSmith> results of survey on text alternatives
http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/44061/201101-issue-31/results
whats going to be done with the survey?
SF: didn't go into detail in comments, but could....
MS: purpose of survey collect data responses on consensus within
group about various exceptions -- exceptions for cases where 1 can
omit @alt
survey closed, purpose to collect data and responses on text
alternatives do we have consensus on exceptions
MS: want to decide which exceptions we support, and which we don't
SF: need more reasoning?
MS: need more respondents -- but is that necessary?
not worth providing more reasoning
<oedipus> MS: how to procede?
JS: survey do we have support for a particular proposal
<oedipus> GJR: propose that we give TF members another week to fill
out survey
JS: on alt text in HTML5, look at survey and compare to chart of
lauras
MC: not opposed but not for extending survey
<oedipus> GJR: if summarize results and post to public-html-a11y can
give TF members a chance to evaluate and endorse
MS: muliple change proposals will proceed through wroking group
anyway, should taskforce endorse one or more
JS: mike is right
... a range of probabilities, where is the consensus?
JF: seem to be clear trends in survey
JS: if we have consnensus maybe we don't need more numbers
... lets take the trended responses and refere to chnage proposals
<oedipus> plus 1
<richardschwerdtfe> BRB
<oedipus>
http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/44061/201101-issue-31/results
SF: in agreement with trends -- 1 for aria-labelledby conforming
text alternative and role="presentation" -- disagree with these
because neither fulfill same role as @alt in browsers, no indication
UAs will treat the 2 in the same way, and there is open hostility to
using ARIA-annotations to "fix" normal display in UAs
... for aria-labelledby, how would serve as text equivalent?
... empty @alt with role="presentation"
... graphical browsers, when image loading turned off, needs a
non-ARIA solution -- what is missing is some plan or proposal for
how UAs will implement this
CS: underspecced aria-labelledby and role="presentation" for
"regular user agents"
SF: looked into aria-labelledby quite a bit in composing Alt Text
Techs -- have not found aria-labelledby sufficient to replace @alt
-- may be useful in case where one uses FIGURe and
FIGCAPTION/CAPTION but haven't found good use cases for it
RS: use labelledby when have text that is visible -- if embedded
text, use aria-label
SF: understand use cases -- what i haven't found is evidence for use
of aria-labelledby without an @alt without an image on a web page
RS: if have @alt, use it
SF: true
RS: if have large chart and have the title for chart then there is
your labelledby value, but separate from chart
CS: use cases for no @alt
... suggestion is not require aria-labelleby, but that it is ok to
use
<JF> +q
SF: can't come up with reason to use aria-labelleby that is superior
to using @alt
RS: big picture with short name (CAPTION for sighted users)
SF: that is what FIGCAPTION is for
... if caption element, make relationship programmatic between image
and caption
... issue with describedby and labelledby -- if have text elsewhere
on page, when get to imagtte, hear referenced text -- still hear
text when read-all --
<eric> should we be concerned that a group of the world's
accessibility experts can't agree on how to label an image?
SF: aria-labelledby scenario -- in application mode -- not getting
access to on-screen text -- moving between focusable elements
GJR: role isn't defined in HTML5 spec
... need to pin down what a @role in HTML5 is
RS: aria-integration -- role refers to section of ARIA where role
attribute defined
<inserted> scribenick: SteveF
RS: had to update the sectionin the aria spec to define role
<JF> +q
<oedipus> RS: have to define @role
GJR: HTML5 spec does not define @role, and ARIA states that @role is
similar to that defined in Role Attribute, but no normative
reference to @role from HTML5
JF: if alt is not present then others will suffice
<inserted> scribenick: oedipus
SF: if have a piece of text that is referenced by aria-labelledby,
that text becomes accessible name value for image -- no semantic
distincition
JF: always said that @alt should never be supplied by machine --
same rule for labelledby -- can't be assigned programmatically or by
authoring tool
SF: that ends up doing the same thing as @alt does
... got a heirarchy of things
GJR: we want a cascascade of equivalency
SF: when issue of providing reason for aria-labelledby use i came up
with Flickr to re-use heading or title on page for image (if one
image on page or one image in DIV) -- TITLE best for aria-labelledby
... different from authoring practices -- limitation of tool
... auto-generated web page, should create a relationship
automatically
MS: what actions can we take away to move this forward?
... not saying don't need progress on these issues, but unsure of
where to go from here -- could say disagree with some deatails of
change proposals -- first task: find out what TF feels about change
proposals
... change proposals will move forward if submitted by individuals
... what is the TF role in this?
JS: did survey results highlight agreement?
... Laura charted what supported -- need comparison
<inserted> scribenick: Stevef
JS: somebody needs to compare change proposals
<inserted> scribenick: oedipus
JS: extend survey -- not going to hold anything up
<inserted> scribenick: oedipus
<inserted> scribenick: Stevef
JS: lets extend the discussion
MS: you and i can talk about this lets extend survey for another
week
... TOPIC: Media Sub-Team Report
... media subteam any bdiscussion about feedback from google?
JS: not discussed but make way to talk about it next week
... talked about poster issue, various points of disagreement, we
uncovered another requirement whcichis not documented yet
... no programmatic way to tell browser i don't want autoplay
<oedipus> Google feedback on HTML5 media a11y (Silvia Pfieffer)
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Jan/0152.html
MS: sounds like a big deal, next step? do we need to file a bug/
JF: yes absolutley
JS: can you file the bug?
JF: yes
MS: move on it sooner ratrher than later
eric: not sure if its a user agent problem or not
MS: google feedback is good should act on it pronto, nit delay
<oedipus> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Canvas/Meetings
<oedipus>
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Canvas/Meetings/Minutes
Canvas Sub-Team Report
rich: close on focus ring, still working on caret, google may join
the meetings
<oedipus> the EXPERTS (AISquared) said they need caret even without
RTE
RS: use contenteditable?
SF: using the DOM
RS: if use DOM and not using canvas, still have to deal with grammar
and spelling errors -- problems that don't go away -- plus NEED a
caret
... same set of problems with RTE or other interactive CANVAS
implementations
... caret helps with positioning of text -- populated to a11y API
layer -- only thing left is grammar and spell-checking
... use case: VM access to a Unix system -- wrote modification to
canvas that intercepts drawing calls that would create virtual
desktop via CANVAS so can work on own machine remotely using CANVAS
... once 1 has canvas, 1 opens a HUGE bucket of worms
MS: should investigate in more detail
ARIA Mapping Sub-Team Report
SF: ARIA mapping call
... hixie provided an alternative counter proposal -- some things
quite useful -- pointed out errors and issues with alt spec text --
started to work way through to pull out items that need further
discussion
... won't make major difference if don't include the changes that
have been suggested for spec text -- worth discussing the bits to
get down to core issues
... me, Rich, DBolter, Cyns will attend next week
... put hixie's counter proposal in wiki
... now counter propasal has been submitted, have time to respond --
can we modify our proposal to reflect new information?
[TWO MINUTE WARNING]
PC: if can't get consensus on initial change proposal and do call
for counter-proposal and info in counter-proposal contains info that
means original change proposal needs tweaking -- best thing to do if
impact original change proposal, tell chairs that and negotiate a
schedule before chairs run survey
... make clear to WG and counter-proposal author how trying to take
their comments in consideration by chaning change proposal
... short answer: yes
SF: hixie posted bug on this -- claimed won't be implemented
... HTML to A11y API mapping hixie claims not needed; browser
vendors disagreed, now hixie posted bug against whole thing to
reflect his change of mind, but no details on ISSUE-129 -- when
wilil he elaborate on his thinking?
... need to know what hixie intends to put into spec before can
comment
MS: understood
PC: should make clear from your position what you believe is
blocking next step -- write email to make clear to chairs that don't
want to proceede to survey until all info available and all parties
have time to reflect on issue
... also, ask me questions when i am here (and i try to make all the
meetings i can)
SF: reasonable questions asked yield no response -- what to do other
than wait?
... deafining silence in some areas
PC: if feel that is happening, please send me a private note --
going to drop off for HTML WG call
Bug-Triage Sub-Team Update
MS: bug-triage update?
MC: dealing with bugs, want to mark verified and close, but not
original filer, so in limbo -- want to know how much discretion is
up to triage team
JF: who filed bugs?
MC: various people
JF: contributor@whatwg.org bugs been mostly closed
MS: for those, once triage team reviews, TF has to take ownership so
that action can be taken on them
... if no one complains, then ok -- if complaints, then deal with
them as specific problems
<richardschwerdtfe> sorry, had to drop
MK: we can verify without problem -- Laura wanted to know once a bug
is verified/fixed original reporter has 2 week time frame to close
or reply -- if no reply, closes automatically after 2 weeks
MC: process feature?
MS: yes
MC: a lot of bugs are still open
MK: ok to verify bug -- next person who comes across it can close it
MC: didn't have that understanding
MS: think in decision policy document
MC: says bug closes, but not who closes it
MS: should raise as decision policy bug -- will look into this today
and talk to chairs about this
<kliehm> Once a bug is verified the reporter has two weeks to
respond, otherwise the bug can be closed.
Timeline to Last Call
GJR: change proposals due 22 january 2011 to be considered pre-Last
Call comments
January 22, 2011 is the cut-off for escalating bugs for pre-LC
consideration--all issues in tracker, calls for proposal issued by
this date. Consequences of missing this date: any further
escalations will be treated as a Last Call comment
(http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/LastCallTimeline)
Summary of Action Items
[End of minutes]
_________________________________________________________
Received on Thursday, 20 January 2011 17:36:25 UTC