W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > March 2014

Minutes: HTML A11Y TF Teleconference, 06 March 2014

From: Mark Sadecki <mark@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2014 13:33:38 -0500
Message-ID: <531B6282.8070702@w3.org>
To: HTML A11Y TF Public <public-html-a11y@w3.org>

The minutes for the HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference 06 March 2014 are available in HTML and plain text below:




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

              HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

06 Mar 2014

   See also: [2]IRC log

      [2] http://www.w3.org/2014/03/06-html-a11y-irc


          Mark_Sadecki, JF, janina, Rich_Schwerdtfeger, paulc,
          Leonie, Cynthia_Shelly, Judy, Steve Faulkner

          Chaals, Adrian Roselli


          MarkS, JF, MarcS


     * [3]Topics
         1. [4]Identify Scribe
         2. [5]March Meeting Schedule & Coming Clock Adjustments
         3. [6]HTML-WG & Web Apps F2F
         4. [7]Reviving and Expanding Media Subteam
         5. [8]PFWG Approves DOM4 LC
         6. [9]Longdesc Update
         7. [10]Canvas 2D Status & Next Steps
         8. [11]Alt Guidance & Next Steps
         9. [12]Bug Triage: Review of Resolved Bugs tracked by TF
        10. [13]Other Business
     * [14]Summary of Action Items

   <trackbot> Date: 06 March 2014

   <MarkS> Meeting: HTML-A11Y Task Force Teleconference

   <MarkS> scribe: MarkS

Identify Scribe

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

March Meeting Schedule & Coming Clock Adjustments

   JS: Clocks are changing. This is when things get out of sync.
   Frequently confusion about when meetings are happening.
   ... US goes to Summertime or daylight time on Sunday morning.
   ... this meeting is pegged to Boston time so it will be an hour
   earlier for many
   ... Wondering if there is consensus on holding this call during

   <janina> janina can

   <JF> not available

   JS: 3/20

   <paulc> I would be able to participate in two weeks on Mar 20

   Likely not for MarkS

   <LJWatson> Will be at CSUN.

   JS: Will postpone until next week. Looks like we may not have a
   meeting on the 20th. This is not unusual since its such a big
   conference for this group.

   PC: I understand how important this conference is, but wonder
   if this would negatively impact progress on key projects, like

   JS: It might have some. Let's ask people to be mindful as we go
   through the agenda

   PC: may be a better question for next week.

   JS: may be we need to prioritize

HTML-WG & Web Apps F2F

     [16] http://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML/wg/2014-04-Agenda

   JS: Becoming more clear who can make it.
   ... doesn't seem like critical mass for anything more than
   casual work. May be an opportunity to make progress on Canvas
   ... there will be people from the TF present, and working on
   Canvas, but probably not a lot of opportunity to do much beyond

   PC: the chairs objective is to publish an Heartbeat coming out
   of the F2F with no bugs and no at risk features
   ... Steve's work on ALT guidance may be problematic
   ... I'd like to know from Steve if the bugs marked as fixed in
   5.1 will end up in 5.0

   JS: would like to get a sense of where work goes from here
   ... what the process should be and where we go when we get to
   that agenda item

   JF: I will know by end of this week, early next week if I can
   go to F2F

Reviving and Expanding Media Subteam

     [17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2014Feb/0049.html

   JS: Trying to reactivate this activity. Old business to finish
   up and new business coming. T
   ... There is a WBS survey out to get that started.

   MS: wondering if time slots were an issue for any TF members.
   May be able to expand the time slots available since Silvia has
   indicated she cannot participate on calls.

   JF: Opening up times earlier in the day makes sense

PFWG Approves DOM4 LC

     [18] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2014Mar/0007.html

   JS: PF did review HTML WG DOM4 Last Call and found no
   accessibility issues. This is simply a DOM spec, not
   specifically for HTML
   ... there was some concern regarding the removal of mutation
   events, but those are still in DOM4 so we are pleased.

Longdesc Update

   <JF> scribe: JF

   MS: have been working on finalizing exit criteria

   good progress, but with some minor re-tooling

   'hope to have something to review next week

   JS: should time nicely with CSUN, as consensus call requires 1
   week - may be able to do that during w/o CSUN

   <MarkS> scribe: MarkS

Canvas 2D Status & Next Steps

   <JF> MS: Canvas update

   <JF> group reviewed spec this week, feature by feature, to
   identify Priority 1 and 2 issues

   <JF> next step is to refine draft

   <JF> hope to use that doc to work with implementors to
   prioritize those features

   <JF> goal to find compatible timeline with the spec

   <JF> PC: thought we would review the implementors to see what
   they will be doing what?

   <JF> has this changed?

   <JF> MS: Rick was on the last call - key implementor

   <JF> Google does not seem fussed over a level 1 or level 2 spec

   <JF> so see the level 1 spec as a roadmap

   <JF> and hope he is open to implementing in a logical order

   <JF> starting with the easiest features first, and they are
   aligned with a11y as well

   <JF> JS: they are also in a logical sequence

   <JF> Dominic noted that they wanted it all in a "all-in" doc

   <JF> however what is emerging is what would be first steps

   <JF> RS: trying to show - build on the larger spec without
   breaking things

   <JF> i.e. using dictionaries, etc.

   <JF> still think it would be a good idea to seek a meeting

   <JF> they are moving away from WHAT WG spec with our guidance,
   but they are not there yet

   <JF> PC: still have not seen an actual time-table for an
   editors draft

   <JF> revised canvas L1 which would go to last call - is there a

   <JF> MS: grabbed the latest HTML from the spec and then added
   our priorities to it

   <JF> it should be a copy and paste exercise

   <JF> need an approval from the sub-group on what was decided to
   keep and what was deferred

   <JF> JS: the logical read should still not break things in the
   spec -should verify that

   <scribe> scribe: MarkS

   JS: RE: Canvas and CSUN, I don't think CSUN Will impact Canvas

   <JF> JS: sounds like CSUN should not impact getting an editors
   draft together

   <JF> should be able to happen during next week

   <scribe> scribe: MarkS

   PC: It's not obvious to me what the progression of steps for
   this is. Possible schedule:
   ... Get a Draft of L1 LC ready, it then goes through the TF,
   then the HTML WG

   JS: What we should talk about is the common desire that we will
   have two implementations to meet CR requirements. That is when
   the discussion with dominic becomes very important.
   ... the fallback is to look to webkit. looking for the right
   person to work with.

   PC: So SubTeam Editors Draft -> Tf -> HTML WG to LC

   RS: Rik has contacts over there

Alt Guidance & Next Steps

   JS: Where are we with migrating 5.1 into 5.0.

   SF: There is one open CR bug on ALT which I will resolve before
   3/15. Been sick, been catching up. Will respond to emails from
   PC as well.
   ... most of the stuff in 5.1 is already in 5.0

   JS: The goal for the HTML F2F is to have a heartbeat with no
   bugs and no features at risk.
   ... would like to have all ALT work done and publish the ALT
   techniques document and publish it as a Note
   ... The Status section would point to HTML5 pointing out that
   they appear in HTML 5.0 and 5.1
   ... There is some interest to continue to develop ALT guidance
   and possibly use that document, continue to develop it.

   JB: we have been having discussions in WAI groups RE ALT
   guidance. Want to expand work in these settings. The pointers
   may go to other WAI resources as well.

   PC: someone should file a CR bug
   ... trying to work through these as quickly as possible.

   JS: I believe the processing of ALT bugs have been done in
   front of the HTML WG. Is there any other approval process we
   need to go through?

   PC: I don't think so, but it is possible that some closer
   inspection may reveal more issues. I think Steve did a good job
   of documenting his work using Bugzilla. It's what the editorial
   team has been doing for their work.
   ... Steve's done a great job of working transparently. I think
   HTML WG should be clear what has been done.

   SF: In discussions on list, I have indicated what is to be back
   ported. All the process should be there. I don't think there
   will be any surprises moving them to 5.0

   <richardschwerdtfeger> +1

   PC: That is exactly why the chairs want to do this as early as
   possible. Canvas has made it clear that when it appears you are
   at the last stage, you may not be.
   ... we want to get the clean CR in people's hands early so we
   can resolve any issues without holding up the timeline

   JS: There is a concern that people may not see these individual
   bugs as a much larger change to the spec.

   SF: the overarching change has been flagged in the HTML
   landscape document, listing all the big changes from the last

   JS: will CSUN set this back?

   SF: no

Bug Triage: Review of Resolved Bugs tracked by TF

   LW: good discussion on processing bugs with HTML Chairs and
   Editors. Have clear path to move forward with old bugs which
   may still be relevant.
   ... we will change the component to the a11y tf component and
   either close it or prep it to be reopened in 5.1

   PC: I think the plan discussed in email is a good plan. I will
   indicate that on the thread.
   ... I think there are some bugs in the component already. The
   bug triage team may want to process those as well.
   ... prior to adding new ones in there.

Other Business

   RS: I sent a note about User Agent Implementation Guides

   JS: Long discussion in ARIA call, and on the PF call. We have
   several documents, some out of this group, at least one between
   PF and SVG. Mapping HTML elements into the AAPIs and defining
   ARIA behaviors. This is for the next iteration of ARIA 1.1 and
   ... the common factor is PF and the ARIA work, so they would
   like to oversee all of these documents. On the other hand, we
   don't think its appropriate for PF to author these. We would
   like to get active on these documents in the HTML5.1 time
   frame. We are aiming for 2016 for HTML and SVG
   ... how can we get this work going? working on refactoring
   workflow and document structure/hierarchy
   ... Figuring out what features will go into Core and what will
   go into technology specific documents.
   ... Michael Cooper will be in charge of most of this, but won't
   be able to focus on it until ARIA 1.0 is out the door and his
   WCAG work as well.
   ... Likely in April
   ... i believe that what we do RE: HTML will be a TF document.
   ... we will publish Heartbeats
   ... coordination will happen in PF

   CS: Would like feedback on what this work will have on the
   HTML5 aria map document

   <paulc> I am sorry but I am chairing the WG meeting today and
   have to leave ASAP.

   CS: who will be working on that
   ... from this group

   RS: All of HTML5 and SVG2 will be defined in terms of ARIA
   semantics. A core specification. This will reduce the size of
   the exiting document.

   <paulc> Can we please take this up next week when we would have
   more time?

   <paulc> I MUST leave now. Sorry.

   RS: a lot of the things we find in SVG2 overlap with HTML.
   There is a common DOM. This is where the core spec becomes
   ... should explain why the HTML ARIA Implementation guide will
   get smaller

   CS: Want to know who I need to talk to, who may have an issue
   with this.

   JS: I think everyone is focused on getting 5.0 out the door.
   ... don't think we are looking for editors, but looking for
   people to participate.
   ... the F2F might be a good opportunity to bring this topic up.


Summary of Action Items

   [End of minutes]

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [19]scribe.perl version
    1.138 ([20]CVS log)
    $Date: 2014-03-08 18:27:16 $

     [19] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [20] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Saturday, 8 March 2014 18:33:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:56:38 UTC