HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

26 May 2010


See also: IRC log


Janina, Michael_Cooper, Janina_Sajka, John_Foliot, Silvia, Judy, Sean_Hayes, MikeSmith, frankolivier, allanj, +61.3.986.4.aaaa
Geoff_Freed, Eric_Carlson


<MichaelC> trackbot, start meeting

<trackbot> Date: 26 May 2010

<MichaelC> meeting: Media sub-group - HTML A11Y TF

== Agenda ==

1. Action Review



Follow up w/ Gunnar Hellstrom on comprehensiveness of secondary signed channel requirements

Judy will add requirements as she gets them - not yet received feedback


<janina> +1 to Sylvia's restructuring of the doc

<MichaelC> close action-45

<trackbot> ACTION-45 Structure requirements into a numbered system closed

frank is working through action-35

<MichaelC> action-35 due 28 May

<trackbot> ACTION-35 Write cues requirements due date now 28 May

silvia restructured the document and added numbered requirements, so action-45 is fulfilled

actions 42 and 43 by Judy will be updated as Judy receives input

Topic 2. Requirements Gathering (Review)

JF: I'd like to encourage the larger working group to do a review

… we want to wrap this up as quickly as possible

judy, ack

judy: I have some issues with some of the wording in the requirements document
... with permission, I would go in and change those

JF: one of the advantages of the wiki is that if you're a member of the group, you should edit

… you're best familiar with the correct terminology

judy: e.g. the term learning disability has different meanings in different parts of Europe

Janina: I think we can do this synchronously and I'm glad Judy is offering to do this

JF: of all the people on this call, you're probably the best person to do this

Janina: I wanted to discuss if content navigation is system or authoring technology

Jim: you really need to make sure you create the structure during creation

Janina: so, it is content, because it is important to have it created during authoring

Jim: yes, but there is also a need to have the navigation technology

JF: this is mostly important for audio - I regard video as the dominant timeline here

Janina: I don't see a problem with making the video the master timeline

silvia: for both, video and audio, the media will stay in control of the timeline and the structure points will be associated to them

… so structural navigation applies to both

… since it request lots of authoring, I put it back in the "content" section

… other content technologies also have system requirements

Janina: I think we're on the same page

JF: asking about architectural requirements

Judy: I am also wondering if we need to make further requirements for how to fit it into the general structure of HTML5

JF: I am wondering how it aligns with the general requirements of WCAG

… e.g. what happens if a video gets onto a Web page and none of the alternative technologies are provided?

… should we be looking at how to react to that?

Judy: I think we can do that independently in a parallel activity

… could be part of the questions we want to ask in the straw poll

JF: ask whether we have missed something for each section

Judy: we are trying to keep things on a schedule

… we have work to do on the technology side after the requirements

JF: so we're ready for a straw poll?

Judy: what questions are we going to ask in it?
... do we ask per section if ppl agree?

JF: we should go through the list of alternative content technologies and ask for each if people agree

… we do work against the clock here

… I really want feedback from each TF member that we haven't missed anything

Janina: I've already added it to tomorrow's agenda for the TF to approve this
... I think we need it order section by section

Judy: maybe - did we capture everything, is it clearly expressed, is something missing, do you agree?

Janina: the reporting day to the HTML TF is tomorrow

… my message will be that we believe we have most of it gathered, but we are still working on the details and the wording

scribe: I think it's open enough for people to look at it and give us feedback

… I will be presenting this to the HCG on 4th June, next Friday

… happy for people to join with me

… HCG=Hypertext Coordination Group

JF: I really want to get more feedback before opening this to the HTML WG

… the straw poll should do that

… we should have the straw poll this week

Janina: so, the question is what questions we should be asking

<MichaelC> Draft survey on review of media accessibility requirements

Michael: we have a draft of the survey ready for today

… we've added all the requirements in

Judy: so this is a static snapshot of the wiki and asks for accept/comment

… what I am wondering if there is a general question whether we captured all

… the survey we have is a survey on a static snapshot, but the document will still change

… do we want consensus on the static snapshot or do we want to link to the document and get feedback on whether we missed anything

<Judy> [judy: did we capture all; are they clear; are they in scope; do we agree]

JF: I'm trying to get people to speak up now from the bulk of the quiet participants on this

… rather thank asking them to go into the wiki and change it, I'd rather have it in the poll

Michael: it's better to ask for input on a static snapshot so everyone is providing feedback on the same text

Judy: as facilitator for this you can actually ask all people on the call for their comments

JF: I wonder about the larger task force of something like 40 people who haven't spoken up

… their wider input would be good

JF: can we make this thing live tomorrow, Michael


Judy: if we can have it go live tomorrow with the changes that we still make today would be good

Michael: I will be very busy tomorrow with meetings, so would prefer today

JF: if we don't put the survey life before the TF call, we could at least give everyone a heads-up on the TF call
... we should wait until Judy has her edits in and then Michael can publish it

Janina: I'd like to touch back on structured navigation
... I'd like to capture one of the key things that Daisy does

… in the explanation we talk about forward, back, previous, next

… but also about more granular navigation at different levels of hierarchy

… similar to h1, h2, h3 in html

… where do we need to capture that on the controls?

scribe: I think we captured it in the content markup, but it is now not in the controls any more

Kenny: I'd like to add to this how we did it in Daisy

… we had different keystrokes to change levels and to navigate between elements on the same level

… the Daisy players now have particular keys on them to navigate between these levels

… in a Windows environment, you'd just need a button to move down a level and shift on that button would move you up a level

JF: we just need to map that navigation to the player

… how about adding it to section 3.1 with the keyboard controls

Janina: I can see many ways to implement this, e.g. for the sighted people there could be access to the navigation structure by providing a overview of all the elements and allow to click through

… in the Web world, this isn't yet a common control

JF: maybe rename section 3.1 to not just adhere to keyboard controls

silvia: I wouldn't want to water down 3.1 by removing "keyboard" since it clearly states all needs to be navigable by keyboard

… the need for content navigation between different levels could either be added to 2.4 or add a new subsection into 3

Kenny: I think we can do it by extending section 2.4

Janina: I want to make sure people understand this very well

… I will try and add it where it makes sense

… I think it's important to state that there is a need for exposing the control

<AllanJ> +1 to not removing keyboard

JF: maybe we can remove the word "keyboard" still from 3.1 and add the content navigation there

Jim: I don't want to see it gone, too

silvia: I think we should add the content navigation need to section 2.4 and explain the need for the different hierarchical levels
... and we should add to section 3.1 the need for keyboard accessibility to these different hierarchical levels
... then we have both captured

JF: ok, we should get the requirements document done by tomorrow and as close as possible completed

… if we can do the gap analysis now would be good

Topic 3. Other business:

Current proposals:

Multi-track API (http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_MultitrackAPI),

Media Text Associations (http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_TextAssociations)

JF: the multitrack API is just a JavaScript API to multiple tracks of a media resource

silvia: yes, it's not yet part of the changes that Ian has introduced

… it would be good if the TF reinforces the need to introduce this functionality into HTML5

JF: I have the same perception

… unless somebody has any issues, I would like to add it to the agenda for tomorrow's call and get it agreed on

Janina: we can add it to the agenda tomorrow

… we should have a resolution here to that effect

proposed resolution: we support the Multitrack API as media subgroup and propose to move it forward to the HTML5 WG http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_MultitrackAPI

Janina: have we anything exposed in the requirements document that would oppose the media multitrack api ?

silvia: in our requirements document we talk about a fair number of types of tracks and the Multitrack API just exposes these

Jim: and one of the track types could be a strauctural navigation track

Judy: can we clean up the language in the first paragraph of that page

please reload http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_MultitrackAPI#Rationale and see if this is better

Sean: I'd like to extend the description of roles in particular with the track types that the requirements document is now describing

<Judy> [judy: replace 1st sentence wording with: .... uh, this will take more than a minute. i can send something in the next day or so.]

JF: it seems there are some changes necessary to the wording, so we may delay this to next week

Judy: in terms of moving quickly, we could have the discussion between now and next week so we can make the resolution next week

Janina: we need to have a poll out for 48 hours to move it forward

… we can get this done within this week and vote on Tuesday and Wednesday

… then move it forward next week

JF: we want to get the Media Multitrack API survey out on Tuesday, so people are encouraged to make their proposed changes / discuss on email before then

… we're out of time

… thanks everyone for joining us on the call

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.135 (CVS log)
$Date: 2010/05/26 23:34:05 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135  of Date: 2009/03/02 03:52:20  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/timeline/section/
Succeeded: s/people/people who haven't spoken up/
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: silvia
Inferring Scribes: silvia

WARNING: No "Topic:" lines found.

Default Present: Janina, Michael_Cooper, Janina_Sajka, John_Foliot, Silvia, Judy, Sean_Hayes, MikeSmith, frankolivier, allanj, +61.3.986.4.aaaa
Present: Janina Michael_Cooper Janina_Sajka John_Foliot Silvia Judy Sean_Hayes MikeSmith frankolivier allanj +61.3.986.4.aaaa
Regrets: Geoff_Freed Eric_Carlson
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010May/0174.html
Found Date: 26 May 2010
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2010/05/26-html-a11y-minutes.html
People with action items: 

WARNING: No "Topic: ..." lines found!  
Resulting HTML may have an empty (invalid) <ol>...</ol>.

Explanation: "Topic: ..." lines are used to indicate the start of 
new discussion topics or agenda items, such as:
<dbooth> Topic: Review of Amy's report

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]