Minutes: HTML A11Y TF Teleconference, 17 October 2013

Hello,

Thanks to everyone who attended the HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference today 17 October 2013. The minutes are available in HTML and plain text below:

HTML:
http://www.w3.org/2013/10/17-html-a11y-minutes.html

TEXT:

    [1]W3C

      [1] http://www.w3.org/

              HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

17 Oct 2013

   See also: [2]IRC log

      [2] http://www.w3.org/2013/10/17-html-a11y-irc

Attendees

   Present
          janina, Mark_Sadecki, Cynthia_Shelly, Adrian_Roselli,
          David_MacDonald, chaals, leonie, Kenny, Judy, Paul

   Regrets
   Chair
          Chaals

   Scribe
          MarkS

Contents

     * [3]Topics
         1. [4]Identify Scribe
            http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/index.php?title=Scr
            ibe_List
         2. [5]Introducing Kenny
         3. [6]CfC determination for Revised Work Statement and
            Decision Procedures
         4. [7]Bug Triage
         5. [8]staging canvas
     * [9]Summary of Action Items
     __________________________________________________________

   <trackbot> Date: 17 October 2013

   <scribe> Meeting: HTML-A11Y Task Force Teleconference

Identify Scribe
[10]http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/index.php?title=Scribe_List

     [10] http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/index.php?title=Scribe_List

   <scribe> scribe: MarkS

Introducing Kenny

   KZ: Hello everyone, I am the newest member of WAI and I will be
   the new web accessibility engineer located in Beihang. I have a
   long history of working in the field of accessibility, most
   recently at IBM developing accessibility solutions for IBM
   customers.

CfC determination for Revised Work Statement and Decision Procedures

   CN: CfC passes in the TF. HTML WG will most likely wait for PF
   to approve the new work statement and consensus procedures

   <chaals> [11]discussion / development of responses to LC
   comments

     [11] http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Longdesc-comments

   CN: ready to propose a set of resolutions to the comments
   received during the LC comment period

   ...we have a survey that we will put as a formal call for
   consensus that will run through the next week.

   ...most comments are editorial in nature.

   ...in response to James Craig, there is a new 'should'
   requirement. It is possible that this will require an
   additional LC period. If so, it would add 3 weeks to the
   longdesc timeline.

   ...please review the comments, look carefully at the proposed
   changes to the spec in addition to the responses.

   [12]https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/44061/ProposedLongdescCommen
   tResponses/

     [12] https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/44061/ProposedLongdescCommentResponses/

   MS: it is now open through next friday

   PC: is this CfC subject to the old TF rules or the new TF rules
   (7 days, spanning a meeting)

   CN: this satisfies the old requirements (and the new)
   ... we have accepted as a group, a set of 20 tests, with
   results for many of those. We are still looking for results on
   AAPIs

   MS: David and I will finish testing and record results by end
   of day tomorrow

   CN: These tests should now be entered into the HTML testing
   framework.

   JS: In last week kris mentioned that it shouldn't be too
   difficult to get our tests into the HTML test suite.

   MS: I can work with the HTML testing TF to get those tests in
   there.

   <chaals> [13]chaals' github account (the test results are in
   longdesc-tests)

     [13] http://github.com/chaals

   LW: can I shadow you during that process?

   DM: me too

   MS: yes I can

   <chaals> ACTION: marks to coordinate putting the tests into the
   HTML harness [recorded in
   [14]http://www.w3.org/2013/10/17-html-a11y-minutes.html#action0
   1]

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-208 - Coordinate putting the tests
   into the html harness [on Mark Sadecki - due 2013-10-24].

   CN: We have been asked to review MSE for accessibility support.
   Are there any particular comments, results.

   AR: I sat down last night to look at MSE. Was concerned with
   text track, syncing of video, etc. I did not see any major
   concerns.

   CN: The key thing to be sure of is that synchronized tracks
   don't get lost or out of sync when you move through the media
   timeline. Should we ask the group to clarify that question?

   ...would help to ask them explicitly

   AR: I think there is value in having them state that
   explicitly.

   <paulc_> paulc

   JS: It was not clear during my review with Mark that the
   requirement the TF has for keeping two video tracks
   synchronized was met (sign language video) We should ask that
   question as well

   PC: why are these questions not pertinent to the HTML5 spec?

   AR: I think it should be addressed in HTML5 as well, but this
   spec addresses certain technical requirements that are
   important to this functionality.

   CN: the kind of change we want is to be explicit that
   accessibility/parallel tracks to be synchronized when you
   move/jump around the timeline.

   <chaals> ACTION: chaals to request that the MSE spec be
   explicit that parallel tracks (e.g. for accessibility) need to
   be re-synched when jumping around a streamed resource [recorded
   in
   [15]http://www.w3.org/2013/10/17-html-a11y-minutes.html#action0
   2]

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-209 - Request that the mse spec be
   explicit that parallel tracks (e.g. for accessibility) need to
   be re-synched when jumping around a streamed resource [on
   Charles McCathie Nevile - due 2013-10-24].

   <chaals> action-209 due today

   <trackbot> Set action-209 Request that the mse spec be explicit
   that parallel tracks (e.g. for accessibility) need to be
   re-synched when jumping around a streamed resource due date to
   2013-10-17.

   PC: maybe its 2.4.5 Changes to selected/enabled track state

   ...deals with synchronization.

   <paulc_> 2.4.5 Changes to selected/enabled track state

   <paulc_>
   [16]http://www.w3.org/TR/media-source/#active-source-buffer-cha
   nges

     [16] http://www.w3.org/TR/media-source/#active-source-buffer-changes

Bug Triage

   a11ytf keyword, marked as resolved and either won’t fix, needs
   info, or later: [17]http://is.gd/VkTxop

     [17] http://is.gd/VkTxop

   [18]https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10905

     [18] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10905

   CN: I think command is being dropped from HTML5 and that is how
   accesskey worked

   ...lets leave it as resolve later. I will take a look at it

   JS: I think command is something we should take up in 5.1

   [19]https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10782

     [19] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10782

   problems with button example for accesskey

   CN: I will need to look carefully at this one (in the spec)
   before I can comment

   ...suggest to leave it for now and assign me an action item

   [20]https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10888

     [20] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10888

   Access Command Requirements for HTML5

   CN: Will leave this one until we're happy with how it all pans
   out

   ...this is master bug

   [21]https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10994

     [21] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10994

   accessKeyLabel can expose new information about the user and
   possibly also other origins

   CN: also not clear if accesskey label is a good solution. I
   would like to open this bug

   ...because the problem exists.

   ...suggest we reopen this bug and re-examine it.

   CN: will have to re-target it since it is currently targeted at
   LC1

   JS: seems like we should target all of these accesskey related
   bugs to HTML5.1

   PC: are you actually talking about taking this bug, opening a
   new one with a new target (5.1) and pointing back to this one?

   CN: No, I propose we re-open this bug and change the component
   to a future product.

   PC: we don't change components because we lose the history

   ...you should open a new bug and link it back to this one.

   [22]https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13451

     [22] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13451

   Don't disallow image map on object

   CN: don't think there is a specific impact here, and there is
   almost no browser implmentation. Not sure what to do with this
   one.

   JS: I'm not clear what the tie-in is

   <chaals> [I propose that we leave this as resolved and pick
   some other battles]

   <chaals> RESOLUTION: close bug 13451

   <cyns> I have a bit of new business to add to the end

   <scribe> done

   [23]https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10252

     [23] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10252

   HTML5 hard-binds "Action" to accesskey key-press

   JS: Same solution as before?

   [agreement]

   <cyns> I'd like to put canvas accessibility and staging across
   5.0, 5.1 and beyond on the agenda for next week. Have some IE
   folks interested in attending to disucss

   JS: it is possible that accesskey gets superseded by landmarks

   <chaals> [I am not happy to drop this bug yet]

   [24]https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11140

     [24] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11140

   Subject: Physical Keys and Gestures for "accesskey" attribute
   The use of ASCII/Unicode code points for key binding has
   numerous well-known drawbacks. There are vital physical
   keyboard keys with no Unicode representation. Even for the main
   alphabet keys sp

   <cyns> on cavas, wondering who besides Rich needs to be there?

   JS: propose the same solution as other accesskey bugs

   [agreement]

   <janina> Cyns, don't understand 'cavas'

   <chaals> [you mean leave them as is, or give up on them? (I am
   not happy taht we give up on them)]

   [25]https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13511

     [25] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13511

   document parsing should discuss setting up accessibility APIs

   <janina> Charles, treat as with other AccessKey related -- move
   to html.next

   <chaals> [OK]

   CS: since the spec we need to reference is not ready yet, we
   should create a new bug in 5.1 and link to this one

   <janina> Yes, Can do

   <scribe> ACTION: Cyns to create new bug HTML5.1 and link to
   original 13511 [recorded in
   [26]http://www.w3.org/2013/10/17-html-a11y-minutes.html#action0
   3]

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-210 - Create new bug html5.1 and link
   to original 13511 [on Cynthia Shelly - due 2013-10-24].

staging canvas

   CS: can we put canvas on the agenda for two weeks from today?

   <paulc_> Ted from Apple?

   JS: I think we should start the canvas sub team up again.
   Steve, Rich, Mark Pritchard, Frank Olivier was active in that,
   and a few others.

   PC: was hober involved?

   CS: I know Rich was really driving it.

   JS: agree to put this on the schedule in two weeks.

   <janina> call 2265

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: chaals to request that the MSE spec be explicit
   that parallel tracks (e.g. for accessibility) need to be
   re-synched when jumping around a streamed resource [recorded in
   [27]http://www.w3.org/2013/10/17-html-a11y-minutes.html#action0
   2]
   [NEW] ACTION: Cyns to create new bug HTML5.1 and link to
   original 13511 [recorded in
   [28]http://www.w3.org/2013/10/17-html-a11y-minutes.html#action0
   3]
   [NEW] ACTION: marks to coordinate putting the tests into the
   HTML harness [recorded in
   [29]http://www.w3.org/2013/10/17-html-a11y-minutes.html#action0
   1]

   [End of minutes]
     __________________________________________________________


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [30]scribe.perl version
    1.138 ([31]CVS log)
    $Date: 2013-10-17 18:54:26 $

     [30] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [31] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

Received on Thursday, 17 October 2013 18:59:31 UTC