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

Minutes from Text Subteam on 23 May

From: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 13:09:35 -0400
To: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20110523170935.GR9866@sonata.rednote.net>
Minutes from the HTML-A11Y Task Force Text Subteam meeting provided
below in text are also available as hypertext at:



                                                           - DRAFT -


23 May 2011

   See also: IRC log


          JF, +1.617.300.aaaa, Janina_Sajka, Michael_Cooper, Judy, Geoff_Freed, Marco_Ranon, Rich_Schwerdtfeger,
          LynnH_RNIB, Leonie_Watson, Laura_Carlson




     * Topics
         1. Update on the expedited discussion regarding Accessibility, HTML5, and Last Call, and expect outcomes going
         2. Revisit approach for drafting, discussing, polishing, and consensing text-alternative re-open requests and
            change proposals
         3. Status check and discussion schedule for all other text alternative re-open requests and change proposals
         4. title & alt http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/notitle : checking additional changes
         5. meta name=generator & alt: check progress, discussion
         6. role=presentation & alt: check progress, discussion
         7. poster-alt: check new approach, discussion
         8. figcaption & alt: check new information, discussion
         9. location of normative guidance on alt: needs write-up
     * Summary of Action Items

   <MichaelC> scribe: janina

Update on the expedited discussion regarding Accessibility, HTML5, and Last Call, and expect outcomes going forward

   <Judy_> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011May/0504.html

   jb: Our longdesc cp and accompanying formal objection did help put an expidited mtg together
   ... Included, html chairs, W3C Director, Philippe, Judy, Janina, and team contacts
   ... Looked at issues going forward
   ... Also, W3C CEO in mtg
   ... Lack of progress of a11y issues in html was the primary concern for discussion
   ... As for results, strong view that LC should go forward for reasons of getting external review
   ... Regretably, W3C doesn't have a separate category for this kind of call
   ... Remaining a11y concerns will be flagged in the lc publication
   ... Also, we didn't want a11y issues disadvantaged by not getting timely review, so looked again at publishing updated
   WD when there's progress
   ... Not an absolute agreement on how that happens, but a shared concern that it happen
   ... Discussed getting clarifications before HTML surveys go out
   ... Acknowledgement that more timely response to recommendations is important
   ... the sometimes year long lag between TF recommendation and announced decision was acknowledged as disadvantageous to
   ... Not ideal, but a better situation than before.
   ... Also, we're looking for additional resources to help
   ... Also, the LC publication, to clarify the actual status, will note that another last call may occur
   ... There will not be claim of feature completeness
   ... Purpose is to get docs out for review, but without illusions that this is at all complete

   rs: I noted many outstanding a11y issues in my vote
   ... Was process discussed? Editor signoff is a problem ongoing

   jb: Three main discussion points ...
   ... 1.) Messaging; 2) Updated Pub; 3.) Process Improvements
   ... Janina and I flagged several process items to discuss; some we had to go into detail so didn't get to everything
   ... Most focus went on timing on decisions, ...
   ... Need for coordination discussions, noting that we had requested and been denied such
   ... Clarifications of issues before they survey, perhaps discussions with chairs before survey
   ... With respect to working with the editor, nothing specific sorted out
   ... There are things I want to look at in that, and I invite everyone to flag and help

   rs: an example, in the case of canvas ...
   ... we put in a cp; Ian countered; OK so far, though Ian always waits to last minute
   ... Chairs reviewed and reached a decision ...

   <JF> +1

   <JF> (+1 to Rich's comment)

   rs: Editor came back saying "he couldn't make those changes in good conscious." How is that allowed?

   jb: That's exactly the kind of thing I want to track much more carefully, though I don't want to spend much time on
   specific examples just now
   ... Please send such to me, Michael, and Janina
   ... We would be happy to have a specific list of such things
   ... Two more things to flag ... Both relevant to our next steps
   ... Part of the rationale for LC is that external reviews might help with many things including a11y support. I
   challenged that because the feedback is not likely to be as technical as they tend to ask for
   ... Nevertheless, we need to encourage feedback, but ask for substantive feedback, e.g. use cases; technical responses
   ... Second, we need to make sure our cp's are strong and well formulated
   ... While this assessment may be heavily compromised by the extreme delay between recommendation and decision, this
   should nevertheless be a focus for us

   <JF> +q

   jb: We may have the opportunity for additional review and perhaps help on this
   ... Do we want to hold off to make our cps stronger?

   jf: Curious of offers for additional help on preparing cp's. Specific names? Can we approach with current work?

   jb: Can't give name now, though have at least one name already, and will be chatting probably Tuesday with them
   ... It was noted that there a number of large corporate W3C members who won't be able to use HTML 5 until a11y is
   properly addressed
   ... So, we may want to take a few weeks to scrub up our CP's, even once we've consensed, just to tighten them and allow
   for pre-consult
   ... Note: Chairs were strong that anything they offered to consult with us, would be generally available to others in
   the WG
   ... My view is that it would help all around

   rs: What about not understanding how things work?

   jb: We discussed how we shouldn't need to guess what they understand, and don't about how a11y works in html
   ... Tim spoke about the importance of relying on expertise in the W3C environment, etc
   ... Any more questions about this mtg in Bilbao?

Revisit approach for drafting, discussing, polishing, and consensing text-alternative re-open requests and change proposals

   jb: Want to check reactions on this ...
   ... How do people feel on this? Do we want to avail of this?

   <JF> Janina: I believe we are greatly under-resourced here, so yes technical expertise on writing these change
   proposals would be greatly appreciated

   <JF> +q

   jb: Means perhaps additional stages for us

   jf: So a question of timing, and available time ...
   ... I know I have outstanding items,
   ... So if we have things ready for an editor, assuming these are also busy people
   ... How does that factor?

   jb: One agendum is the timeline, and I will propose we need to watch that carefully
   ... Don't have details at the moment

   <JF> (From Steve F via email: Regrets my Internet connection has failed.

   <JF> Sent from my iPhone)

   <JF> +q

   jb: So, we might encourage Steve and Laura at this point on this, to position them optimally, want to know how people
   feel about that

   jf: Several of our alt items have been broken into separate items, yet it's a response to a single decision
   ... So, is it a question of keeping them separate? Filing bugs and escalating to issues at this point?

   jb: We've already agreed to send as separate items

   jf: They're not being tracked that way ...

   jb: Ah ...
   ... part of the problem may be that we don't have consensus about moving each piece forward

   jf: which is why i suggest splitting them out

   jb: Don't care how they're tracked, but they need to be tracked within the next few hours

   mc: will help get bugzilla entries for alt

   jb: anything else on this topic?

   jf: If we get those logged, and a11ytf key word, an email to chairs ...

   jb: They agreed to this immediately as they were already planning on this, and have emailed us checking whether they're
   list comports with ours

   janina: If we do what we are allowed, bugzilla, then identify to the Chairs our issues in email, we've done our due

   jb: We'll at list in email, if not more
   ... Any objection with my approaching Steve and Laura re additional review before moving cps forward?

   <JF> +1

   rs: We have some text to strike, is that doable?

   jb: I believe Laura is eager, we had asked to freeze text during the past weeks, but I think this can move
   ... We have this on the agenda

   <Judy_> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011May/0162.html

   jb: Suggest for js and ms that there be some people tasked to look at the TF consensus process, to look for anything
   that might impact the ability of TF to handle consensus better
   ... Note that the WG timeline is tight, lc itself is 10 weeks, with additional steps
   ... Please look at this and respond at TF level as needed. We need to look to meet the timeline

   rs: See 'entering comments,' is that bugs?

   jb: Don't know, but that's the kind of question we need to satisfy
   ... what and when -- we need to be clear
   ... if we think the timeline won't work, we can challenge it and should, but we need to be ready to defend that
   ... Noting some dates are the wrong year ...

   rs: We just did lc with aria, and many of our comments weren't necessarily "bugs."

   <JF> +q

   jb: Should TF invite a Chair to take this up with us

   <scribe> ACTION: Janina to request a TF session on LC timeline for questions and clarifications [recorded in

   jf: If we do a challenge, how quickly?

   jb: Again, let's assign a few people to study several process questions, lc timeline, tf consensus, etc., should be
   ... that's not this subteam

   rs: Notes he'll be away for two weeks

   jb: Please forward questions ...
   ... Any volunteers for subteam

   janina +self

   jb: Encourages people to check wbs results
   ... Appreciate participation we had on this
   ... Anyone have comments pending on longdesc cp?


   <Judy_> judy hearing no additional comments -- and that we should encourage Laura to review and incorporate feedback
   from survey, and then bring it back to text-alternatives subgroup for re-consensus

   <Judy_> janina: but not to leave open for any length of time

   <Judy_> judy will be checking on time considerations under the new timeline from co-chairs

Status check and discussion schedule for all other text alternative re-open requests and change proposals

   jb: There are several items continuing in the agenda, before we go into the details ...
   ... Title inAlt, Steve has updated based on questions from Maciej

   <JF> Steve's re-submission: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/notitlev2

   jb: I believe we should encourage that be reviewed and consensed by this Subteam
   ... We should then ask Steve if he thinks it should be reviewed here, and whether additional cp help would be helpful
   ... Believe this is more important than pushing for an immediate survey on this

title & alt http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/notitle : checking additional changes

   see the above ...

meta name=generator & alt: check progress, discussion

   <JF> JF: I am supposed to be taking Leif's emails, etc.. I have started a wiki page to make this into a Change
   Proposal, which I have not had a chance to do

   <JF> JB: trying to figure out the consensus approach on this topic, wondering whether JF and Leif were on the same

   jf: Leif and I are pretty much in sync ...
   ... Now using generator string to do something that it wasn't designed for
   ... essentially provides an excuse to ignore alt
   ... Leif was going deeper than I thought was required, but think we're pretty much in agreement

   jb: So no concern about consensus?

   jf: Not at all

role=presentation & alt: check progress, discussion

   jb: Rich, you and Cynthia had discussion on this, and agreed on some bugs, but some people felt more than bugs needed.
   Is that correct?
   ... Can you update?

   rs: We didn't want presentation on the body tag
   ... Re aria presentation it'll
   ... agreement that redundant alt="" was ok
   ... agreed to let it go as it was

   <Laura> okay

   rs: question as to whether validator should flag role=presentation but alt is non-null
   ... Most content today is client generated, so validator doesn't buy us much

   rs; Not essential that we put this into the validitor

   rs: presentation plus null alt is redundant, but backward compatibility is supported that way

   jb: But no reopen request?

   rs: Yes, that's my view


   <JF> +1

   rs: Can those bugs be filed soon?
   ... Think we let it go as is

   jb: So no bugs now

   rs: Correct

   jb: Reviewing earlier items for Laura ...

   <Judy> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/44061/20110519_longdesc/results

   jb: Specifically re longdesc feedback that came in

   lc: Absolutely can reopen and move forward

   jb: Needs to be a short time
   ... Then stabilize again and return to TF to check consensus

   lc: Can do by Thursday

   jb: May make sens for this meeting next
   ... Would you be willing to avail of the additional process help even though is a well developed proposal, perhaps the
   best developed?

   l;c: happy to take input

   jb: Can discuss this with youf urther

   lc: Who is the engineer?

   jb: Not yet met with them, will advise if I think it's a good match
   ... Chairs had said their plan was to survey longdesc as soon as the lc is published

   lc: can be concurrent

   jb: May make sense to wait a week or so to avoid proliferation of counter proposals, if possible

   lc: sounds fine

   jb: will ask them to NOT send a call now

   <Laura> have to go now. bye

poster-alt: check new approach, discussion

   jf: Has been in discussion in Media
   ... Appear to have reached a solution that appears to meet all our reqs
   ... want aria and uawg to check
   ... there are multiple pieces
   ... based on aria-describedby; describing video and the static image separately
   ... possibly no ua today, but looks like should meet need
   ... I still have this logged as formal objection, but this may supercede

   jb: you'll leave the fo in place?

   jf: yes, no reason to pull at this time

   jb: Does this belong under text? Or should go back to Media?

   jf: Think it should stay with both

   janina: we're covering new things that benefit from wider review

   jb: looking forward to the day we can say: "look at all these new a11y things"

   jf: do have a timeline question,
   ... want to make sure we stay in the timeline, as it's not going to be in lc

figcaption & alt: check new information, discussion

   jb: Still side discussion going on as to whether there is, oris not, "new" evidence, so that we might speak as one
   ... We should know in a few weeks on this
   ... we'll need to check for consensus

location of normative guidance on alt: needs write-up

   jb: a fair amount of discussion in the survey on this -- the html spec pub survey

   rs; Not essential that we put this into the validitorhttp://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/html5-last-call-poll/results

   jb: believe we have consensus on this, but getting to this issue has been a problem, looking for people to help work on
   ... Perhaps Steve and Michael ... Others?

   janina +1

   <LynnH_RNIB> I need to go now - bye

   <richardschwerdtfe> regrets for the next 2 weeks

   <richardschwerdtfe> Rich: regrets for the next two weeks

   jb: Janina may be chairing next few meetings, and we'll look to a rotating scribe list?

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: Janina to request a TF session on LC timeline for questions and clarifications [recorded in

   [End of minutes]

Inferring ScribeNick: janina
Present: JF +1.617.300.aaaa Janina_Sajka Michael_Cooper Judy Geoff_Freed Marco_Ranon Rich_Schwerdtfeger LynnH_RNIB Leonie_Watson
People with action items: janina


Janina Sajka,	Phone:	+1.443.300.2200

Chair, Open Accessibility	janina@a11y.org	
Linux Foundation		http://a11y.org

Chair, Protocols & Formats
Web Accessibility Initiative	http://www.w3.org/wai/pf
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
Received on Monday, 23 May 2011 17:10:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 20 January 2023 19:59:02 UTC