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

minutes: HTML Accessibility Task Force Weekly Call 2011-03-31 [draft]

From: Gregory J. Rosmaita <oedipus@hicom.net>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 17:17:44 +0100
To: public-html-a11y@w3.org
Message-Id: <20110331161641.M84420@hicom.net>

minutes from the 31 March 2011 HTML A11y Task Force's weekly telecon
can be accessed as hypertext from:


as an IRC log at:


and as plain text following this announcement -- as usual, please 
report any errors, clarifications, corrections, mis-attributions
and the like by replying-to this announcement on-list

thanks to Léonie Watson for scribing the 2011-03-31 meeting (and
for her extensive scribing at the recent face2face)

                               - DRAFT -

             HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

31 Mar 2011


   See also: IRC log - http://www.w3.org/2011/03/31-html-a11y-irc


          Cynthia_Shelly, Eric_Carlson, Gregory_Rosmaita, Janina_Sajka,
          John_Foliot, Judy, Léonie_Watson, MRanon, Marco_Ranon,
          Michael_Cooper, Mike, Mike_Smith, kliehm, Paul_Cotton

          Denis_Boudreau, Laura_Carlson, Rich_Schwerdtfeger




     * Topics
         1. Canvas subteam update
         2. Sub group updates: Media
         3. longdesc
     * Summary of Action Items

   <trackbot> Date: 31 March 2011

   <janina> Meeting: HTML-A11Y telecon

   <janina> Chair: Janina_Sajka

   <janina> agenda: this

Canvas subteam update

   <oedipus> RichS' update on Canvas Subgroup (2011-03-30)

   <oedipus> HTML WG Issue-131 (caret for canvas) CP objection poll

   <oedipus> HTML WG Issue-131 (caret for canvas) CP objection poll

   <oedipus> HTML A11y TF Canvas Subgroup CP being polled for HTML WG

   <oedipus> ian hickson counter proposal
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Mar/0521.html - 
   as RichS' comments point out, hixie's counter proposal has
   several technical flaws and does not address magnification needs

   <MichaelC> scribe: Leonie_Watson

   <MichaelC> Topic Sub group updates: Canvas

   <MichaelC> GJR: RS has created a change proposal for issue 131, but
   IH believes it to be unsound.

   <MichaelC> GJR: When the TF completes something that is seen as a
   deliverable, what do we have to do to get that accepted?

   <oedipus> poll closes today 2011-03-31

   JB: At a minimum you would want to provide that clear statement of
   the survey.
   ... To acknowledge that the consensus came from a wider range of
   ... Restating the facts and restating the concerns would be helpful
   in getting those things on the record again.

   JS: Can I remind everyone that the chairs have asked people not to
   +1 or repeat information.

   <paulc> Please note that all surveys say: "Comments that are NOT
   actual technical objections to material in the change proposal ARE

   EC: I think it's reasonable and healthy for people to have other
   proposals. They'll be evaluated on their merits.

   JB: I don't disagree with that at all.

   <oedipus> 1. the "alternate" proposal is the canvas spec text
   iitself; 2. canvas subgroup tasked to provide spec ready solutions

   GJR: The alternate proposal is the canvas spec text itself, and that
   has grown and changed over time. The sub group was tasked with
   taking that text and looking at there the holes might be.


   PC: You guys need to read the poll...

   <paulc> "Comments that are NOT actual technical objections to
   material in the change proposal ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE and WILL BE

   <oedipus> paulc, how, then, do we make issues such as the one under
   discussion to the chairs and WG?

   PC: The text says comments that are not technical objectsions are
   not acceptable and will be ignored. I want to warn you that from
   what I can tell, these kinds of comments about the validity/strength
   of where a proposal comes from will be dismissed.

   CS: Does it comes down to the fact that oen proposal was vetted by
   vendors and the others was not make the difference?

   <JF> +q

   <oedipus> what is the use of the poll if feedback is so limiited?

   CS: Is consultation with a wider array of vendors significant?

   PC: Yes, providing it's demonstratd through technical comments
   within the change proposal.
   ... Just saying you talked to your mother about your change proposal
   isn't germaine.

   <oedipus> B.S

   JB: The potentially narrow wording of some of the questions within
   the survey has fuelled some f the difficulty.

   <JF> Note: the chairs are hesitant to reorganize the poll questions
   completely, unless there are WG members who truly feel they cannot
   sensibly respond to the current poll. -

   JB: I hope you do look at the evidence of where something was

   GJR: I don't think you heard what I said in reply to Eric. This
   isn't being pulled out of our sleeves, it's a dedicated effort by
   the TF to come up with identification of where the holes are, how
   they can be plugged and the relevant changes to the spec.
   ... We've had this discussion many times before, the way the survey
   questions are phrased/posed, makes us question how we're supposed to
   approach thes things?

   <oedipus> RichS is a C T O at IBM not someone's mother-in-law

   JF: It's hard to find examples when we're talking about future
   implementations. We're also supposed to be building consensus, but
   when you have two opposing perspectives it isn't clear how we
   resolve that.

   <paulc> From the survey lead in text: We will not do any numerical
   counting all the votes. All we will look at is the objections and
   rationale presented.

   <JF> CAn the chairs define what they consider "consensus>?

   PC: What I'mn hearing is a more general distain for the survey
   process. I'd suggest you all have more valuable work to do than
   discuss this process. I suggest you describe your concerns and JS
   and JB can take them to the chairs.

   <oedipus> paulc, doesn't the small number of comments that are
   actually dealt with in these surveys ring a warning bell to the

   PC: I hear your pain, but this is the process the chairs have put in
   place. We did a call for consensus, which was approved by the WG.

   <paulc> One other comment:

   <paulc> I anyone has trouble understanding a survey they should
   respond to the Straw Poll email asking for a clarifiacation.

   <oedipus> this isn't the first time that the survey format has been
   questioned, at least in this TF, for quite some time

   <paulc> They chairs are very open to explaing or even adjusting the
   survey(s) so they are clearer.

   <paulc> it only makes our evaluation easier.

   <JF> +q

   <oedipus> 3 responders to poll on HTML WG Issue-131 are: hixie,
   RichS and SteveF

   <oedipus> rich does a very good job of explaining why the canvas
   subgroup's CP should be considered and the problems with hixie's

   JF: How are the chairs assessing consensus here? It seems that some
   issues are stepping into the realm of philosophy, it's not even a
   question about the text itself, but where the text should be. But
   you're not asking for philosophy, you're asking for technicalities.

   PC: We measure consensus by trying to find the change proposal that
   generates the least objection.

   EC: What I hear is a number of people saying the chairs should
   recognise authority, and that people are making appeals to
   authority, and I don't believe that's what this group actually
   ... Whilst this group has a great deal of accessibility expertise,
   there are probably a lot of people outside of this group that have
   expertise in other areas of the web, and we don't want the opinions
   of people here shut out because they're not recognised as experts in
   other areas.

   <paulc> Again from the survey lead in text: This is not a popularity
   contest. The Working Group Decision will be based on the strength of
   objections, not the number of people expressing them.

   <oedipus> eric_carlson, a major reason why the TF exists is to get
   info from pertinent authorities where ever they are (within/without

   JS: Everyone needs to be heard, you don't need to be an authority to
   have a good ieea. We do hhave to work with the people who will make
   things work and we're casting about for a way to make that happen.

   GJR: What we did is what EC suggested, we gathered opinions, vetted
   them and I think we're functioning in the way we should be.

   JS: We need to try and keep that technically focused.

   PC: The poll closes on 31/03/2011.

Sub group updates: Media

   JS: Very solid progress is being made, however it's not possible to
   reduce the number of change proposals this week. It's going to take
   more time, and there was concern about this yesterday on the call.

   <paulc> The Chairs have read the Media sub-group minutes in detail,
   we are monitoring the progress, we are processing MSFT's request for
   a delay in the survey, ...

   JF: Issue 152 - There's still a lot of discussion happening, we're
   trying to get it done ASAP, and there is a concern that if it gets
   pushed too far we'll be missing a technical requirement that's been
   articulated early on. There's a general consensus, and we need this
   going into last call.
   ... There are a couple of other oustanding issues that we didn't get
   a chance to discuss, but none are considered critical at this stage.

   <paulc> The WG Chairs will be meeting today after the WG Weekly
   meeting to discuss how to move ISUE-152 forward.

   JS: The group remains focused via email, the wki and other channels
   in addition to the weekly telecons.

   <JF> thanks paul

   <paulc> I personally do NOT believe the survey will start on April 1
   as originally announced.

   PC: Keep working on the work you've been doing, I think it's heading
   in the right direction.

   <paulc> Thank for all the great work on -152. We are in a MUCH
   better place than say a month ago.

   JF: We're working hard to get this cleared up ASAP.

   PC: Having a deadline for issue 152 seems to have helped.


   <paulc> Question for participants: would it have been better if I
   had NOT attended this meeting? You might have go more work done
   WITHOUT me?

   <oedipus> paulc, no we DO appreciate your participation and are
   thankful for it

   JS: We're looking to SF to help draft a proposal based on
   conversations at the F2F. LC has done great work, but calling it a
   change proposal is difficult because it seems to transmute several
   times a day at the moment and we need to extract a solid core from

   <oedipus> change proposal strategy note: once the change proposal
   has reached maturity, any additional information pertinent to the
   issue should be logged using the wiki page's "discussion" page
   feature, so as to maintain the stability of the actual CP

   <JF> +1 to GJR

   GJR: Strategy note, once you have a change proposal you feel is
   close, it helps to log notes and comments on the wki. This helps the
   change proposal itself stay more consistent.

   <oedipus> LauraC's original CP:

   JF: The most important take away from the F2F was a relaxing of the
   stand on whether the presence of a longer description mechanism
   should be visible to sighted people. In listening to a lot of
   feedback and discussing it, there was agreement that having a visual
   indicator was useful though.

   <oedipus> CP from SD F2F:

   JF: There was also some draft text put into SF's alt text document.
   Personally I feel this is the best place for author guidance.

   JS: There is a whole question around the idea of a visual indicator
   or the ability to access that meta data via the browser. The
   response seems to be that there isn't an objection to this, but it's
   not strictly an a11y issue.

   JF: The general feeling was that it would be a "should" requirement,
   rather than a "must" requirement. The belief is that the single
   widest barrier to the adoption of longdesc to date is that browsers
   haven't been able to convey the presence of a longdesc to users and
   this is why it's been broken.

   <oedipus> note: PFWG has formally submitted its
   recommendation/resolution on Verbose Descriptor Requirements

   JS: In a parallel effort, PF in response to this discussion and
   specifically in response to many f the issues raised during the
   first round of consideration, have tried to come up with a set of

   <oedipus> 1. A programmatic mechanism to reference a specific set of
   structured content, either internal or external to the document
   containing the described image.

   <oedipus> 2. A way to inform users and authors that a description is

   <oedipus> 3. A device independent way to access the descriptive

   <oedipus> 4. An explicit provision that accessing descriptive
   content, whether internal or external to the document containing the
   image, does NOT take the user away from the user's position in the
   document containing the image where the verbose descriptor was

   <oedipus> 5. A way to provide user control over exposition of the
   descriptor so that rendering of the image and its description is not
   an either/or proposition. (A visual indicator of the description
   should NOT be a forced visual encumbrance on sighted users by

   <oedipus> 6. A method to reference a longer description of an image,
   without including the content in the main flow of a page.

   <oedipus> 7. Since an img element may be within the content of an a
   element, the user agent's mechanism in the user interface for
   accessing the verbose descriptor resource of the former must be
   different than the mechanism for accessing the href resource of the

   GJR: These requirements are attribute and element agnostic. These
   are specifically to define what functionality is needed for a
   verbose description mechanism. They're not requirements for longdesc

   JS: The aim is for the TF to look at these and either modify or
   endorse them.

   <oedipus> the 7 PFWG requirements for verbose description also
   logged as HTML WG Bug 10853 HTML5 lacks a verbose description
   mechanism: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10853

   JB: Would it be possible for SF and JF to take a look at this before
   Friday, so the TF could look at it and see if we can get consensus?

   JF: SF and I talked about this, and yes. There is some work that's
   happening and it's a mirror of what Laura is doing, and we want to
   make sure we capture the consensus we arrived at in San Diego.

   JB: Can the TF confirm a welcome to Laura to coordinate directly
   with the TF on this?.

Summary of Action Items

   [End of minutes]
Received on Thursday, 31 March 2011 16:18:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:55:53 UTC