minutes, HTML a11y TF, 2011-11-10

http://www.w3.org/2011/11/10-html-a11y-minutes.html

   Present
          Cynthia_Shelly, JohnFoliot, Janina_Sajka, Michael_Cooper,
          PaulCotton, MikeSmith, Rich_Schwerdtfeger, Steve_Faulkner,
          Leonie_Watson, JudyBrewer

   Chair
          Mike

   Scribe
          MikeSmith

     * Topics
         1. Subteam reports
     _________________________________________________________

Subteam reports

   lwatson: on call on Tuesday, discussed changing priority of a
   particular bug, and looked a some bugs that were lacking keywords,
   as well as looking at "needs info" bugs to make sure they have an
   assigned person

   janina: I suspect our priority over the next month will be following
   up on various bugs and that more of us need to be helping do that

   richardschwerdtfe: about canvas, Frank asked to write a modified
   version of the hit-testing proposal
   ... I asked him to base it on the current draft
   ... and I asked if we really need to change focus ring
   ... my take on it is, could we live with what's already in there
   ... and I think we could
   ... so I think Frank is writing it up and we want to run it by Jonas
   Sicking and Ted O'Connor
   ... some other things that came up is that we've been talking about
   the component model that will help on this down the road
   ... but in the mean time, we need to deal specifically with canvas
   for now

   janina: the text-alternatives subteam did not meet this week
   ... and there are a couple of items that are waiting on me to
   complete
   ... I expect that we will meet next Tuesday

   cynthia: about the a11y API mappings subteam, Stevef, are we going
   to meet next Tuesday?

   Stevef: yeah, can, but have to leave at half-past

   John: about the Media subteam, we need to get the subteam
   re-convened; we should probably do that next week
   ... we have the poster-alt issue that has a Formal Objection from me
   logged against it
   ... I talked with Frank about the ARIA-based solution for the
   poster-alt issue
   ... and I need to follow up with David Bolter about it
   ... and if we could get that added to ARIA 1.1, would like to do
   that

   cynthia: Why would we need new ARIA markup for this, instead of just
   aria-describedat?

   John: describedat would be the long textual description for the
   movie itself
   ... we need a dedicated long textual description just for the poster

   cynthia: let's talk about this later

   [some discussion about details]

   John: we have been thinking about this as a foreground image, but
   perhaps we need to think of it as a background image
   ... and the ability to describe a background image has other utility
   than just the poster-alt case
   ... lots of uses
   ... so if we were to add this new role, it would be abstracted out
   for general use

   richardschwerdtfe: we are trying to get ARIA through CR, I am a
   little concerned about this parallel effort

   janina: can we talk about timing and process on Monday's PF call?
   ... I think we have some good options
   ... the concern about going sequentially was that we would have to
   re-do all our testing, but according to Judy that's not necessarily
   so

   richardschwerdtfe: well, we still have to get implementations in
   browsers

   cynthia: could we do it during the last 30 minutes of the call,
   please?

   janina: so let's to the process-timing discussion ahead of that?
   ... and I want to remind everybody that the user-agent
   implementation guide is a joint deliverable of the PFWG and HTML WG

   <paulc>
   http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/formal-objection-status.html#ISSUE
   -142

       http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/formal-objection-status.html#ISSUE-142

   MikeSmith: any other business?

   richardschwerdtfe: wanted to ask Judy, do we need to go through a
   full CR on ARIA 1.1 again?

   Judy: you have all the evidence for all the tests you did for ARIA
   1.0
   ... so all of your evidence for 1.0 would still be valid
   ... it would be unusual if you were trying to run the timeline so
   that they were done at the same time
   ... but maybe we don't need to drive the details here
   ... you would not be free of the obligations for 1.1, but you would
   need to cover the new features

   <Stevef> Ian Hickson responds over HTML5 getting 'time' element back
   http://www.netmagazine.com/news/ian-hickson-responds-over-html5-g
   etting-time-element-back-111552

       http://www.netmagazine.com/news/ian-hickson-responds-over-html5-getting-time-element-back-111552

   Judy: the length of CR is not prescribed anywhere
   ... it is instead based on whether you met your exit criteria
   ... in some cases it's possible to have a sort of zero-time CR, if
   the group has done its preperation

   <richardschwerdtfe> got to drop

   Paul: I assume the TF is not meeting on US Thanksgiving?

   janina: yeah

   lwatson: I can scribe next week

   Stevef: as I can't make it to the HTML WG meeting, I wanted to bring
   up the status on the <time> element, what's being done to get that
   back into HTML5?

   <paulc> The Chairs are aware of the fact that the revert was not
   done by the Editor on the schedule we requested.

   <paulc> We are also aware that the Editor has gone public with his
   personal views:
   http://www.netmagazine.com/news/ian-hickson-responds-over-html5-g
   etting-time-element-back-111552

       http://www.netmagazine.com/news/ian-hickson-responds-over-html5-getting-time-element-back-111552

   <paulc> We are discussing this with the Team via email and have
   nothing to report right now.

   Stevef: OK, thanks

   [End of minutes]

-- 
Michael[tm] Smith
http://people.w3.org/mike/+

Received on Thursday, 10 November 2011 17:06:27 UTC