W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > March 2012

Minutes for the HTML-A11Y TF Teleconference on 15 March

From: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 12:14:28 -0400
To: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20120315161428.GA5542@sonata.rednote.net>
Minutes from the HTML-A11Y Task Force teleconference on 15 March are
reproduced below in text and available as hypertext at:


                                                           - DRAFT -

                                          HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

15 Mar 2012


   See also: IRC log


          John_Foliot, Judy, Mike, Cooper, Janina_Sajka, Rich, paulc, Steve_Faulkner




     * Topics
     * Summary of Action Items

   <trackbot> Date: 15 March 2012

   <scribe> scribe: janina

   We're small attendance, so meeting will be short, but there's a report from Text Subteam that we will take ...

   <Judy> Resumed meeting this Tuesday, March 13th, 1pm EDT

   <Judy> http://www.w3.org/2012/03/13-text-minutes.html

   <Judy> 1. Mainly discussed an update on the PFWG ARIA TF F2F MTG last week, including implications regarding longdesc
   and issue 204, which concerns whether ARIA should be able to point to hidden content

   <Judy> - PFWG concluded nothing in 204 that would make describedBY an acceptable alternative for longdesc

   <Judy> - We noted that this mechanism may be otherwise useful, but would become dangerous at the point that it is
   combined with tab order focus.

   <Judy> - ARIA documentation clarifications in progress; or now done

   <Judy> 2. Continued concern that the question on longdesc still needs a fair hearing, and that the question is
   recycling extensively but has not actually been called.

   <Judy> 3. Brief discussion of some possibilities for updating the CP on meta name-generator

   Judy: Remider to people of the ongoing meeting time for Text, it's Tuesdays at 1PM Boston

   Mike, if you're talking, we're hearing science-fictiony noise

   We're good now ...

   john: I have submitted a CP on 204
   ... Also have ongoing thread with Rich to make certain that my statements are factually correct

   mike: OK, unsure of where we are on the agenda ... ...
   ... Also wanted to get Canvas update today, but no Rich
   ... Anything else to add re text alternatives on this call today?

   judy: Expect that Text Subteam will need to continue to be extremely active given issues still unresolved
   ... These will also take considerable work

   john: Also want to note Issue-203 which has some dependencies on text alternatives
   ... Noting this was rejected -- noting that it can't be resolved because it's dependencies are unresolved
   ... Just want to note that on record

   mike: I see that, unsure what the TF can do at this point
   ... The TF isn't an individual entity in the WG process that puts proposals, unlike what individuals do in that respect
   ... In response to John I'm still unclear what the TF's next step would be

   john: This is how I see it, the CP outlines requirements and dependencies,
   ... If that's to remain rejected, I guess the appeal is the remaining option, though not my preference
   ... The point of the CP(and the Issue) was to make certain key functionality was not lost
   ... It's inaction from the CHTML Chairs on Issue-30 that blocks proper action on these other issues ...

   judy: Want to first speak to John's concern on 203 ...
   ... I would note I came across a similar conundrum working on a Fig-Caption Word Count proposal ...
   ... Mike, I'm also somewhat confused by what I thought I heard you saying ...
   ... Were you saying the TF doesn't put proposals to the WG?

   Mike: Exactly what I'm saying.
   ... For instance, no TF "account" for TF opinions, only individual

   judy: In terms of WBS, sure, but proposing positions was a core reason for TF

   mike: We've never definitively taken position from the TF on longdesc

   judy: There has indeed been a TF resolution on longdesc, the Laura proposal is a TF supported

   mike: I haven't taken a position, have not endorsed one, so if there's supposedly such a position, there's something
   wrong here
   ... I'm aware there are individuals that do not endorrse

   janina: There definitely was -- a resolution on the call and the follow up email consensus call

   mike: Want to hear current state on Canvas -- to move on ...

   rich: So, I've been working with Ian providing requirements and use cases
   ... I don't know everything a11y needs is there, need to look forward
   ... My initial reaction is that it may be a bit more heavyweight than needed
   ... What I'm hearing inside of IBM from people using canvas is that it's much lighterweight than SVG
   ... With Canvas we don't need an element for everything drawn
   ... Don't know who wins on that, but I know I need to look further on Ian's latest
   ... Mike, do you know whether Ian has vetted this with app developers?

   mike: That is a key question ...
   ... would not want this to end up as different browser implementations

   rich: agree

   mike: We have the situation of a large enterprise being able to implement, butneed also to enable the small shop and
   individual author to implement
   ... Frank's proposal looks much simpler to me from that perspective

   irhc; I also don't know the answer to that at this point

   rich: At one point the proposals were missing the ability to clear the path, for instance
   ... This was missing in Frank's, don't yet know about Ian's
   ... But I think the most important feedback needs to be from app devs

   mike: Don't know for sure, but suspect there might not have been much feedback from devs on Ian's current proposal
   ... that kind of feedback does take time

   rich: IBM is definitely looking at canvas vs SVG because of our apps in data analytics
   ... I know people think we're doing a rich text editor because I talk about that, but it's actually data analytics for
   ... Also, WebGL is built on HTML canvas

   mike: There's a close mapping between canvas and the way native desktop apps work in many, many cases today
   ... we may disagree on whether creating text editing is appropriate or not
   ... but it is possible to do that
   ... in the end, everything is a bit map

   rich: So, from this perspective, the a11y support is deep experience for us because we've done this all before with
   Windows (and other GUI)

   <Stevef> FYI more canvas YUI http://fohr.github.com/blossom/

   paul: Problem here is that we have a close date for proposals and Ian hasn't submitted one yet
   ... Regardless of what Ian may have put into the spec, there's no counter proposal
   ... We're missing a cp for what Ian has added into the spec -- and that's a problem
   ... it's unobvious how much overlap between Frank's cp and what Ian has put into the spec
   ... I believe that's what Rich is saying he needs to look into

   rich: I'm unsure of what has changed, there's no diff

   paul: So, whether heyavy or light weight, I'm concerned that it's unobvious how much overlap
   ... And secondly that there's also no CP

   <Stevef> richardschwerdtfe: http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker

   rich: Could Ian be asked for a CP?

   paul: Any wg member can do that ...

   mike: So this is tantamount to asking him to respond to Bugs yet defend the changes in the spec

   paul: More importantly, in this particular case there's no association with a bug this time

   rich: Yes, he didn't follow any kind of process here

   mike: There are many changes he makes that aren't responsive to particular bugs

   paul: My point is simply that there's no corelation here to any particular bug

   mike: Speaking from an editor's perspective, sometimes one needs to make a judgement call ...
   ... I think what we need at this point re Ian's path changes is an assessment whether these are in line with our

   rich: Can try to look at that, but it's hard without a diff or a CP
   ... It's particular time consuming to reverse engineer this
   ... Mike, do you know whether the HTML Chairs have reviewed Frank's proposal? The others that went in

   mike: They have a process, first step being a comment on whether the CPs are "well formed"
   ... Sometimes this takes time -- along time
   ... I would ask that we try to have a qualitative assessment on Frank vs Ian's proposals by next week ...

   <Stevef> richardscherdtfe: http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Canvas lists what hixies been adding

   rich: I'll do my best, noting that there's a lot to look at here and many of us have a back log of work given recent
   travel and conference meetings

   mike: If not by next week, can we say two weeks from now?

   Steve: There's some helpful info on the WHAT Wiki page ...

   mike: Do want to ask for scribe for next week, anyone?
   ... Silence, unfortunately!
   ... I'll do it if no other volunteer

   john: If I'm working from home, I'll do so, or back up the scribing

   mike: Any objections to adjournment at this time?

   [no objections]

Summary of Action Items

   [End of minutes]


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 Thursday, 15 March 2012 16:14:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:56:06 UTC