- From: Mark Sadecki <mark@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 10:12:24 -0500
- To: HTML A11Y TF Public <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Hello,
The minutes for the HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference 30 January 2014 are available in HTML and plain text below:
HTML:
http://www.w3.org/2014/01/30-html-a11y-minutes.html
TEXT:
[1]W3C
[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
Attendees
Present
Janina_Sajka, Mark_Sadecki, chaals, Adrian_Roselli,
John_Foliot, paulc, Cynthia_Shelly, jaymunro,
Bill_Gregory, Leonie, steveF, David_MacDonald
Regrets
Chair
Janina_Sajka
Scribe
Chaals, MarkS
Contents
* [3]Topics
1. [4]Identify Scribe
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/index.php?title=Scr
ibe_List
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
[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/2014J
an/0072.html
[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...
... 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/2014J
an/0077.html
[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
alt...
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
counterproductive
CMN: Right.
SF: Think I can wrap this within the next week, and get the bug
resolved.
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?
<aardrian>
[14]https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23207
[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
document?
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
made.
... 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
bug.
... 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
section.
SF: 95% of the work has been done. The issue would have come up
regardless of whether we were making the overall changes or
not.
... stuff is progressively being ported back to 5.0 as we do
this.
... 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
significant
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
happening.
<paulc> In addition we could then use that set of changes/bugs
to justify publishing the original WD of alt guidance as a
Note.
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
changes.
<scribe> ACTION: SteveF to produce a list of the bugs relating
to the alt guidance changes [recorded in
[15]http://www.w3.org/2014/01/30-html-a11y-minutes.html#action0
1]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-228 - Produce a list of the bugs
relating to the alt guidance changes [on Steve Faulkner - due
2014-02-06].
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
delay.
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
material.
Any Remaining A11yTF Bugs?
JS: Know we plan a revisit of bugs...
LJW: @@
<MarkS>
[17]https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?bug_status=RESOL
VED&keywords=a11ytf&keywords_type=allwords&list_id=31694&produc
t=HTML%20WG&resolution=NEEDSINFO&resolution=INVALID&resolution=
WONTFIX
[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.
<MarkS>
[18]https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23284
[18] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23284
[assigned to chaals]
<MarkS>
[19]https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20224
[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
<MarkS>
[20]https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13728
[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
<MarkS>
[21]https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13666
[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
[22]http://www.w3.org/2014/01/30-html-a11y-minutes.html#action0
1]
[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