RE: Minutes from 27 Feb HTML5 Techniques Task Force

Belated regrets - at an all day meeting on another one of my projects at NIST.. Apologies..
Thanks for all the comments..
Best, Tim Boland NIST


From: Loretta Guarino Reid [mailto:lorettaguarino@google.com]
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 1:08 PM
To: WCAG; wai-xtech@w3.org
Subject: Minutes from 27 Feb HTML5 Techniques Task Force

http://www.w3.org/2012/02/27-html-techs-tf-minutes.html

  [1]W3C



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



                               - DRAFT -



                      HTML Techniques Task Force



27 Feb 2012



   See also: [2]IRC log



      [2] http://www.w3.org/2012/02/27-html-techs-tf-irc



Attendees



   Present

          Joseph_Scheuhammer, James_Nurthen, Marc_Johlic, Cooper,

          Bruce_Bailey, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Adam_Solomon, David_Todd



   Regrets

   Chair

          James_Nurthen



   Scribe

          Loretta



Contents



     * [3]Topics

         1. [4]Proposed new ARIA/WCAG techique Using aria-describdby

            and alert for Error Feedback in Forms]

         2. [5]Using the HTML5 required attribute to indicate that a

            value is required in an input field.

     * [6]Summary of Action Items

     _________________________________________________________



   <scribe> scribe:Loretta



Proposed new ARIA/WCAG techique [Using aria-describdby and alert for

Error Feedback in Forms]



   Tim isn't at the meeting. This is an early draft, which is fine,

   especially while we are learing to write techniques



   Recommend just using HTML, not HTML5 specifically, for ARIA

   techniques.



   JN: The group is reviewing the comments in the survey.



   LGR: Is there anything in the comments that we don't think Tim

   should act on?



   Resolution: Leave open.



   MJ: Difference between how to use attributes vs how to address

   technique?



   BB: Is the use of alt="" with required attribute legitimate? Does

   this meet 1.1.1?



   LGR: We may need a separate 1.1.1 technique if we think this is ok.



Using the HTML5 required attribute to indicate that a value is required

in an input field.



   DT: Comments are looking familiar! Will go back and review to be

   sure that comments have been addressed.

   ... Updated technique this morning, so comments may be on an older

   version.



   AS: My comments are current.



   JN: Could we move this technique from the Trace wiki to the W3C

   wiki?

   ... See link at the top of the Trace wiki main page.

   ... Or at least create future techniques there.

   ... Should we try to revise and review this on the fly?



   <MichaelC> please use this URL for the technique on the WCAG wiki:

   [7]http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Techniques/ARIA/Using_aria-describe

   dby_and_alert_for_Error_Feedback_in_Forms



      [7] http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Techniques/ARIA/Using_aria-describedby_and_alert_for_Error_Feedback_in_Forms



   JN: What versions of what browsers support HTML5?

   ... We can put that information into Technology Notes for HTML5, and

   just note anything that is specific to the technique in the User

   Agent Notes.



   <DavidTodd> Using the html5 required attribute to validate (or

   "describe") a required input field



   <MichaelC> please use this URL for the technique on the WCAG wiki:

   [8]http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Techniques/ARIA/Using_the_required_

   attribute_to_indicate_a_required_input_field



      [8] http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Techniques/ARIA/Using_the_required_attribute_to_indicate_a_required_input_field



   <jamesn> DavidTodd, User Agent testing notes can be found here -

   [9]http://john.foliot.ca/required-inputs/



      [9] http://john.foliot.ca/required-inputs/



   <jamesn> AS: Should test procedures check all instances or just one?



   <jamesn> AS: What about consistency?



   <jamesn> LGR: Note sure we have always been consistent. Suggest

   going forward not to make the test procedure check all



   <jamesn> DT: do we want to mention specific browsers in the user

   agent notes?



   <jamesn> JN: Yes - where the user agent notes are more specific than

   general user agent notes.



   David will research browser behavior for user agent notes and bring

   the technique back for review.



   Otherwise, we think it looks fine.



   MJ: Going back to Adam's comments about browsers, will there be

   something about general browser behavior in the description?



   JN: Both is fine, in my opinion.

   ... In this case, there are 2 different UA behaviors in the

   description: browser rendering and screen reader behavior.



   <DavidTodd> Sorry, have to drop off to get to another call.



   MJ: Trying to decide how focused to keep techniques.



   JN: Who can't make next week's call, besides James and Michael? Josh

   will run the call.



Summary of Action Items



   [End of minutes]

     _________________________________________________________





    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [10]scribe.perl version 1.136

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)



Found Scribe: Loretta

Inferring ScribeNick: Loretta

Default Present: Joseph_Scheuhammer, James_Nurthen, Marc_Johlic, Cooper

, Bruce_Bailey, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Adam_Solomon, David_Todd

Present: Joseph_Scheuhammer James_Nurthen Marc_Johlic Cooper Bruce_Bail

ey Loretta_Guarino_Reid Adam_Solomon David_Todd

Got date from IRC log name: 27 Feb 2012

Guessing minutes URL: [13]http://www.w3.org/2012/02/27-html-techs-tf-mi<http://www.w3.org/2012/02/27-html-techs-tf-mi%0d%0anutes.html>

nutes.html<http://www.w3.org/2012/02/27-html-techs-tf-mi%0d%0anutes.html>

People with action items:



     [13] http://www.w3.org/2012/02/27-html-techs-tf-minutes.html