Minutes: HTML A11Y TF Teleconference, 30 January 2014


The minutes for the HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference 30 January 2014 are available in HTML and plain text below:



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

              HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

30 Jan 2014

   See also: [2]IRC log

      [2] http://www.w3.org/2014/01/30-html-a11y-irc


          Janina_Sajka, Mark_Sadecki, chaals, Adrian_Roselli,
          John_Foliot, paulc, Cynthia_Shelly, jaymunro,
          Bill_Gregory, Leonie, steveF, David_MacDonald


          Chaals, MarkS


     * [3]Topics
         1. [4]Identify Scribe
         2. [5]Longdesc Update
         3. [6]Canvas 2D Followup
         4. [7]Alt Guidance & Next Steps
         5. [8]Heartbeat Publications Prep
         6. [9]Any Remaining A11yTF Bugs?
     * [10]Summary of Action Items

   <trackbot> Date: 30 January 2014

   <janina> Meeting: HTML-A11Y Task Force Teleconference

Identify Scribe

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

   <scribe> scribe: Chaals

Longdesc Update

   CMN: we have some light editorial comments. Most are
   reasonable. Minor tweaks. Others overlap with past changes, so
   will likely not address those

   ...Paul, results of CfC in WG?

   <richardschwerdtfeger> I can't call in but I can monitor. I am
   in customer meetings.

   PC: posted to list yesterday. 1 dissenter.

   <paulc> See CfC decision:

     [12] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2014Jan/0072.html

   ...otherwise positive feedback

   PC: Result published yesterday. One objection, just reiterating
   old arguments, including "there will be a replacement real soon
   now" - and we have heard the "real soon" for five years or

   ... so it's on the Recommendation Track.

   ...from the HTML WG's point of view, it is on the REC track

   JS: PF got one objection reviewing old arguments, one
   abstention. Voted a resolution on the teleconference. PF has
   approved having longdesc on the Rec track..

   <paulc> PF WG decision:

     [13] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2014Jan/0077.html

   CMN: So bottom line is Mark and I don't have more excuses of
   waiting for ... and have to get the thing out :)

Canvas 2D Followup

   MS: Had subgroup meeting on Monday.

   ... We got some feedback yesterday from Mozilla who have raised
   some concrete concerns. Expect to talk about them Monday and
   see if we need to do more before we get consensus.

   ... Also looking at testing now.

   ... Looks like we have pretty good coverage for that.

   JS: Getting implementer feedback that shows there is more
   discussion needed before we get consensus to go Last Call - but
   no problems for heartbeats.

   PC: Sam and I understand the subgroup is trying to dot the i's
   and cross the t's, but that's what LC / CR are for.

   ... I could understand if we expected to go LC to PR. I can
   live with what you're doing now, but we're only going to
   provide so much rope. You're trying to avoid going back to Last
   Call again, and we are not convinced that it is necessary to
   worry about that.

   MS: OK, but want to make sure major implementers are at least
   basically satisfied before we get too far ahead.

   PC: OK. But let's try to get the right people into the
   conversation - alternatively Sam and I think we can do that in
   Last Call.

   MS: OK. Note that we said we expected to be here in Q1, and we
   think we're doing OK on that.

   PC: You also said end of Jan, and that is where we are...

   JS: We sometimes get Mozilla in and sometimes they disappear.
   Is there anyone major missing?

   MS: Haven't heard from Apple at all - will check with hober...

   <paulc> hober is on IRC

   MS: There are a couple of people RichS suggested. We'd like to
   hear from Apple too.

   PC: Note that part of our concern is that we expect to have
   another 60-day exclusion period stretching Last Call, so we
   expect that to be the long pole...

Alt Guidance & Next Steps

   JS: Think the guidance is pretty good at this point.

   ... I could live with what is there right now. The discussion
   about informing users of classes of images should maybe get
   picked up somewhere. Maybe add another example...

   ... and a counter-example - don't say 'alt="logo"' without
   something else.

   DM: We might want to file a bug to allow ARIA-* to replace

   JS: Perhaps...

   ...don't think we want to try and push that back to 5.0 though

   CS: Yes, I think opening that discussion here would be

   CMN: Right.

   SF: Think I can wrap this within the next week, and get the bug

   PC: It seems Janina's question is "what is needed to move this
   into 5.0"?

   SF: As far as I know we mark the change as editorial, and so it
   gets moved into the next Working Draft for HTML 5.0

   ... if there is something more substantive we have to go
   through the Working Group.

   ... for formal approval.

   PC: What's the 5.1 bug number, and how much of the alt guidance
   issue does this cover?

   SF: This covers a single example.

   <janina> It's bug 23207

   PC: So is this editorial or not?


     [14] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23207

   ... trying to understand the gameplan for the alt guidance
   material in general.

   ... If there are a raft of changes, are they still really
   editorial as a set?

   ... Trying to get a sense of the set of changes/bugs that the
   TF would like backported to 5.0 - I don't know that and don't
   know the schedule for it.

   [Paul and Steve trying to get on the same page]

   SF: The Lat guidance doc hasn't been updated for a year or so.
   Once we have it reflecting the guidance in the spec, it can
   become a Note or something. I have been concentrating on
   resolving the problem in the spec itself.

   PC: So you're making changes to 5.1 to replace the alt guidance

   SF: Yep.

   PC: What are the set of bugs that mandate those changes?

   SF: Do you want a list of those bugs?

   PC: I believe the answer to the question "is the set of changes
   made editorial overall" depends on the collection of changes

   ... we need to be transparent to say "with all these changes,
   the alt guidance document can go away". Is this bug part of
   that set of changes?

   ... If so, when we notify them that we make a change we should
   notify that the particular change is part of a broader set.

   JS: Think when Steve feels we are done, and the TF feels we are
   done, with getting 5.1 to have good guidance, it is appropriate
   to tell the WG. There are significant changes involved overall.

   ... And I am not sure if everything was covered by a single

   ... Instead of Ian's old language focused on literary
   consistency, it is important to have the alt provide
   functionality. This has resulted in a bunch of changes and a
   fundamental shift.

   <JF> +1 to what Janina is saying

   ... But do agree that when we go to backport the changes to 5.0
   we should be clear that there is a major rewrite of the

   SF: 95% of the work has been done. The issue would have come up
   regardless of whether we were making the overall changes or

   ... stuff is progressively being ported back to 5.0 as we do

   ... I state what has been moved, but haven't been making the
   actual shifts.

   ... I'll find the emails that explained what I was going to do,
   before I started.

   ... More generally, I haven't seen how merges into the CR have
   been communicated.

   CMN: Sounds like discussion has centered around the need to
   communicate to WG that there are significant changes. I think
   we should just agree that we will need to communicate the
   totality of the changes

   JF: Do we have a summary of the changes yet?

   ... The /concern/ is whether we are making a thousand little
   changes and somehow pretending that we're not doing anything

   CS: We can do a diff and get the list of changes easily enough.

   <paulc> I suggest Steve simply add a unique keyword to the alt
   related bugs so that a Bugzilla search can be used to list the
   bugs related to fixing the alt guidance.

   <JF> +1 to Paul's suggestion

   JS: We decided to fix the spec first, then clarify what is

   <paulc> In addition we could then use that set of changes/bugs
   to justify publishing the original WD of alt guidance as a

   PC: Just tag all the bugs with a keyword, and then get the list
   of bugs. Easier than creating a prose summary. When the TF is
   happy, we use those bugs as a rationale for publishing the alt
   guidance as a note.

   ... It would be very useful to communicate the larger set of
   changes we're working on, as we make the various incremental

   <scribe> ACTION: SteveF to produce a list of the bugs relating
   to the alt guidance changes [recorded in

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-228 - Produce a list of the bugs
   relating to the alt guidance changes [on Steve Faulkner - due

   PC: Possible that about March HTML chairs will start soliciting
   input on at-risk features to be removed. So you want to get
   this finished and in quickly.

   LJW: We have used a11y_text-alt as a tag, so that saves
   inventing a new one.

   SF: Lots have been tagged with that

   LJW: Yes, but there are bugs missing the tag.

Heartbeat Publications Prep

   JS: Need a few more days to get PF agreement on Heartbeats -
   will probably take until Wednesday next week. Apologies for the

   PC: Which document?
   ... 5.0, 5.1, polyglot and DOM LCs?

   JS: We don't have a horse in that race, so no worries.

   [Turns out there was nothing to discuss here]

   <paulc> [16]http://tinyurl.com/m3pvkqd for alt related bugs

     [16] http://tinyurl.com/m3pvkqd

   PC: Hope I did the search correct for alt bugs. Problem is that
   it generates 121 bugs. Doubt that covers just the alt guidance

Any Remaining A11yTF Bugs?

   JS: Know we plan a revisit of bugs...

   LJW: @@


     [17] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?bug_status=RESOLVED&keywords=a11ytf&keywords_type=allwords&list_id=31694&product=HTML%20WG&resolution=NEEDSINFO&resolution=INVALID&resolution=WONTFIX

   MS: These are bugs that we want to look through and check.


     [18] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23284

   [assigned to chaals]


     [19] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20224

   JS: Think this is a good idea...

   SF: Something I have to look at.

   ... should be moved to 5.1

   ... won't be implemented in 5.0

   RESOLUTION: Reopen bug 20224 on HTML 5.1


     [20] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13728

   SF: Looks like this has been fixed.

   RESOLUTION: Close 13278

   Rationale: It's been fixed/overtaken


     [21] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13666

   [reading through the bug]

   JS: ARIA will have sub-teams, one of which (EPUB) is coming
   rapidly. Think this is of high interest to them

   <JF> +1 to aria epub's interest of this

   SF: I closed this because I defined what should be done to
   reopen, and nobody did anything.

   JS: Think the work might get done by the EPUB people who are
   coming into W3C to define this kind of work.

   <JF> suggest reopening and adding a new tag - epub perhaps?

   ... DAISY would like HTML to have something defined for this.

   ... they are the people who want this fixed.

   LJW: From HTML we should close this. If ARIA team take it, then
   it isn't an HTML bug...

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: SteveF to produce a list of the bugs relating to
   the alt guidance changes [recorded in

   [End of minutes]

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [23]scribe.perl version
    1.138 ([24]CVS log)
    $Date: 2014-01-30 17:12:03 $

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

Received on Friday, 31 January 2014 15:12:26 UTC