RE: Text Subteam Minutes for 27 June

>   <paulc_> Look at the second item in the table.
> PC: will check to see what other chairs remember, to see what the chairs said

The Chairs have put this on the agenda of our Tue Chairs meeting for discussion.


Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329

-----Original Message-----
From: [] On Behalf Of Janina Sajka
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2011 2:16 PM
To: HTML Accessibility Task Force
Subject: Text Subteam Minutes for 27 June

Minutes from the 27 June meeting of the HTML-A11Y Task Force Text Subteam are provided below in text and are available as hypertext at:


                                                           - DRAFT -


27 Jun 2011

   See also: IRC log


          Judy, John_Foliot, Janina, paulc, Michael_Cooper, Lynn_Holdsworth, Leonie, Rich_Schwerdtfeger, Laura_Carlson




     * Topics
         1. Confirm actions, timelines, next meetings; identify next
         2. action item check
         3. meta name=generator further discussion
         4. longdesc, any new info on counter-proposals
         5. figcaption, status check on re-open request, check on timing
     * Summary of Action Items

   <scribe> Scribe: JF

Confirm actions, timelines, next meetings; identify next scribe

action item check

   JB: Asking if there are any action items report this week?

   else will likely re-visit items this week

meta name=generator further discussion

   JB: metagenerator issue

   there are some people on this call to discuss

   JF: Lief had requested the issue to be re-opened, and has submitted a CP to the Chairs


   <paulc_> Look at the second item in the table.

   JB: looking for a link to Leif's CP

   PC: Chairs considering this item under development

   JB: Leif has submitted a draft for a Change Proposal

   PC: surprised that the Chairs do not have this on their action list

   is investigating and will follow up

   JB: is what Leif submitted sufficient for re-opening the issue?

   PC: Not sure, needs to coordinate with other Chairs

   JB: if we have not supplied enough information, could we be advised so that this team can supply that?

   unclear if the right information is there to re-open the request

   PC: done

   JB: if it also seems that if there is sufficient info to re-open, it seems we should have another round of ccordination
   with leif

   not sure when actions get "activiated" by Chairs (Q to PC)

   PC: will check to see what other chairs remember, to see what the chairs said

   JB: is there anything else to discuss here?

   If we hear back from chairs that they are ready to consider who might be interested to take a second look?

   anyone besides John prepared to do a review? don't believe we have a consensus report from this sub-group

   with next week's Monday holiday, pushes this to 2 weeks out

   JS: I think we were waiting for cleaned up language, but will review

   JB: checking if anyone else can volunteer to look at language

   LW: will sign up for that, but coming to issue new

longdesc, any new info on counter-proposals

   JB: wait to see what PC has to say, and then we can go from there
   ... there are 2 counter proposals that came in late last week

   1 from Jonas the other from Matthew

   asking PC what the process of handling this now

   PC: preference would be to have some discussion on the List to discuss the merits before the survey

   <paulc_> The chairs are NOT going to survey the longdesc alternate proposals right away.

   <paulc_> We would recommend discuss on the email list.

   <paulc_> So I would suggest that the TF might either do that or analyze the counter proposals and then provide

   JB: it appears we need to do both

   starting with analysis of counter proposals

   <paulc_> For example think of what you would say about the counter proposals in a survey and provide that feedback on
   the email list ASAP.

   we had some discussion prior to Jonas' submission

   around some of the issues around his approach


   has anyone had an opportunity to review and is there anything new we did not anticipate



   JB: w.r.t. Jonas' proposal, is there much difference between what we expected, versus what is submitted

   <judy> jf: looking at jonas' proposal, seems mostly what we anticipated, 2 key things unaddressed: 1) consumption on
   demand, y/n; and 2) aria describedby doesn't pass through... not a focusable item

   JB: any other coments?

   <paulc_> How did he respond to the first (comsumption onf demand) item?

   the first one has been raised as a question on the public list last week, bu tthe second one has not come up prior to
   last thursday

   JF: correct

   JB: when the concerns were raised, what was Jonas' response - he didn't believe what the evidence was?

   JS: he did not respond right away - he did respond but Matt had jumped in earlier

   it was fairly late - almost just before he submitted his proposal

   JB with encouragement from the Chairs, hopefully we will get more discussion on this

   JB: w.r.t. the second issue, can Rich rais thta on the main list

   <paulc_> Can you give me the link to the thread on the public list?

   RS: what the issue is - what the user agents do is supply a description, basicly a string

   however they should be able to

   <paulc_> Chairs "plan" was to encourage discussion on longdesc on the list.

   RS: if the user agent follows the relationship, and it takes it to a section of the page, then html-rich content should
   be active

   Rich reviewing the API mappings

   <janina> Here's the URI for head of thread of the opening discussion with Jonas as requested from this group:


   If the text is visible on screen, then it preserves the html-richness

   but if it is off-screen then it becomes flat text

   <paulc_> Is this limitation identified in the message 0204.html on the public list?

   JF: that is the issue

   <janina> No, not this issue

   RS: If you want this text to be rich, you need to be able to navigate

   <paulc_> Jonas's reply to 0204.html is in

   JF's response to Jonas' email (noted by Paul above):

   PC: Just posted Jonas' reply of June 20th - saying that he didn't respond is misleading - he did respond

   JB: Sems there may be an opportunity to follow up with Jonas thoughtfully and constructivelyq+

   JB: are people under the impression that further disucssion will not go any further?


   PC: if you look at Jonas' change it seems that the input is being taken in

   can't say for sure, but it is possible

   <paulc_> Is one possibility now that Jonas has supplied his CP is to re-state the items from janina's orginal email +
   items mentioned today in response to the CP which arrived on Sat.

   JB: want to make sure we are not just doing an exercise, but keep hearing that 2 main requirements are not being
   address, and very little possibility to address thm in Jonas' proposal

   ideally focus on those, and not other issues

   does anyone disagree?

   <paulc_> Respond to his CP with the old + new points as required.

   <paulc_> No cell coverage

   JB: concern is that they address the edges but no the core

   <paulc_> "at the lake"

   JB: so JF can take a look and respond

   <paulc_> I will report to the Chairs that the TF/sub-team wants time to engage here.

   asking Paul given the tentative plan to ask for further discussion, andy idea of time-line?

   <paulc_> We are meeting later today and I will give you written feedback/


   JB: want's to discuss the Zero Change proposal

   have reviewed it briefly and question some of the assertions

   not sure what is gained in this proposal, given the immense amount of work done particularly by laura in her proposal,
   that are supported by the task force

   JB: am puzzling over what would be gained by talking this over, outside of apparently we need to
   ... there are a few questions I would want to follow up with with Paul and Janina later today

   prior to chairs call

   it seems it would be challenging to review a lot of mis-information

   there are 3 different questions: interacting whith Jonas to see if there is some distance that can be closed,

   we could go a different direction and ask that the Chairs just call the question

   how much support does Jonas have?

   JB: we likely need to manage discussion here

   JS: I think we are confusing time-lines here

   and with more discussion we may be able to get Jonas to back down, but the Matt's proposal is likely all religious

   JB: there is Jonas' proposal, there is matt's proposal, and there is laura's proposal

   given that we have a bit of time and I want to re-check on

   laura's proposal might still have some areas that need re-tweaking - if we have extra time we should spend it there

   laura has indicated that she is open to such

   w.r.t. the description of ARIA

   JB: not hearing that continued discussion is not useful

figcaption, status check on re-open request, check on timing

   JB: on figcaption, there are parts of a Change Proposal being gathered up

   Pretty sure that Geoff Freed can assist

   but the other piece is writing up a description of how a warning would work

   the heuristic measure that if figcaption exceeds X number of characters...

   however writing up the description of how that would work

   JS: think it is a fairly simple issue

   JB: takes that as a volunteer action from Janina

   that makes Judy, Geoff and Janina

   this is assigned to Josh and katie

   neither are on calls

   JS: Katie may be off line for a few days due to health issues

   Josh not coming up with more new evidence

   <judy> JF: might be something coming up on table summary

   JS: Can we maybe get longdesc to apply to tables?

   JB: w.r.t. table summary, I believed we had a clear rationale for re-opening

   JS: we disagree with the decision that it wasn't being used

   we discussed enhanced alternatives, including heuristics

   JB: 2 very different tasks. Better elaborate the use-cases, and the second is to improve the mechanisms

   katie was looking at the second part,correct?

   JS: Katie is new to this discussion

   it was Wendy Chisholm who looked at this a year ago

   JB: who would be good at writing up use-case for this?

   JS: Gregory had suggested to move this to an element

   JB: re: the use-case

   if @summary was rejected because it was deemed un-necessary, then a new way of doing this won't change things

   wondering if Leonie might help define the use-cases for that

   for why it is needed

   <janina> Chairs Table Summary decision at:


   JB: willing to follow up with Leonie
   ... suggestions for next steps?
   ... need some help for mechanisms

   Lynn: could help with use-cases

   JB: consider yourself included

   <richardschwerdtfe> I have to drop folks

   <richardschwerdtfe> sorry



   I would like to present new info regarding @summary. And hope for your evaluation of whether this - provided I submit a
   change proposal - could be enough to have the case reopened. The Decision spoke about the ARIA momentum. But actual
   tests shows that it takes time. As an example, the Textile editor added support for @summary only the autumn 2010. [1]


   For @longdesc, then one of the arguments are time based: *currently* ARIA does not work. And based on new data (see
   below), the same argument can be used about @aria-* for <table> too. Hence, a time based use case - time is needed to
   properly depreacte @summary.

   A time based argument can also be made when it comes to authoring tools. I believe none of the browser based WYSIWYG
   editors support aria attributes. Currently, at least one CMS tool has removed one instance of @summary in order to be
   HTMl5 compliant, but did not in the same go replace it with anything else. [2]


   When running some ATs through a test page [3], I found that aria-label, aria-labelledby and aria-describedby for
   non-void elements are not read by VoiceOver and Jaws. (Or, I guess more accurately: they only support these attributes
   for elements which have role=img.) With regard to NVDA, then it varies: it does not use these aria attributes for the
   table element when used with IE. But when...

   scribe: used with Firefox 5, then it seems to read them. (Note: Fore IE, then I have only access to IE8.)

   In contrast, the support for @summary is much better - supported by nearly all ATs. [3]


   * @summary would be useful in addition to aria-describedby due to the lacking support for aria-describedby. (See NEW
   FINDINGS below.) @summary is not relevant for <IMG> because AT have much better support for aria-describedby on the IMG
   element than they have on the TABLE element. I suppose even canvas may have good aria support due to the fact that it
   often is used for non-texts and and is...

   scribe: generally known to be A11Y challenged.

   * Identification of specific operational problems with the aria-describedby attribute that make it not able to be
   programmatically determined or suitable for use as a table summary: Though only one AT currently implements it [2], the
   caption should be read before the summary/description, since the caption is the name and the name should be presented
   before the description. However, generally, if a

   ria-describedby is attached to an element, then whatever it points to will be read before the content of the element
   itself is read.

   Therefore, AT needs to special case <table> (and <figure>) in order to read their captions before the description.

   * Tool vendors vs @summary vs @aria-describedby


   [2] [0]



   JB: is it possible to have something in 2 weeks?

   <judy> judy: can there be a draft proposal on table summary in 2 weeks?

   Lynn: will try to do this

   JS: will do introductions

   JB: a few follow ups coming on the longdesc proposals
   ... Michael any progress on location of alt guidance?
   ... will presume that people will not be available next week (July 4th)

   next meeting will be in 2 weeks then

   next week's scribe will be rich

   <Laura> Have to go. Need to help a student.

   JB: reviewing to-do's

   JB; wrapping up call

   <janina> scribenic: janina

Summary of Action Items

   [End of minutes]

Found Scribe: JF
Present: Judy John_Foliot Janina paulc Michael_Cooper Lynn_Holdsworth Leonie Rich_Schwerdtfeger Laura_Carlson


Janina Sajka,	Phone:	+1.443.300.2200

Chair, Open Accessibility	
Linux Foundation

Chair, Protocols & Formats
Web Accessibility Initiative
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)

Received on Tuesday, 28 June 2011 03:24:13 UTC