HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference -- 15 Jul 2010

<trackbot> Date: 15 July 2010

<janina> Meeting: HTML-A11Y telecon

<janina> agenda: this

<inserted> scribe: John_Foliot

<inserted> scribenick: JF

<scribe> JF

<paulc> I am still booting up and will join by phone ASAP.

Actions Review Mike C: there is some Canvas Actions what shouel we do?

Janina - await Steve F & Rich S to join the call

Action 22

<trackbot> Sorry, bad ACTION syntax

<MichaelC> action-22 due 1 Nov

<trackbot> ACTION-22 Organize joint discussion of testing task force and html a11y task force due date now 1 Nov

Advance to Nov 1 and turn into Tech Pleneray issue

Action-44

Mike C: is this an actual action item, or just a reminder

<MichaelC> close action-44

<trackbot> ACTION-44 - monitor status of @alt in HTML5 spec; when SteveF's Alt Guidance is published, ensure that what is in SteveF's note supersedes or corrects HTML5 verbiage; propose changes to HTML5 based on SteveF's alt doc closed

shouold we close it as an action?

agreed

ACTION-46

<MichaelC> close action-46

<trackbot> ACTION-46 Work with WAI UAWG to find home for "image analysis heuristics" text from HTML5 spec (HTML WG issue 66) closed

Steve F has a number of actions assigned - will wait for him to join us or defer

3 open actions re: Canvas

<MichaelC> close action-12

<trackbot> ACTION-12 Ensure there is a dependency between the HTML5 specification and the HTML 5 2D Context specification to ensure that the author has the ability to set the visible focus, for <canvas>, to ensure that a magnifier may follow the visual focus. This would be driven by the shadow DOM. closed

Rich: is this group just handling HTML, or is it looking at media queries, etc.?

Greg: believes it should be in the PFWG

we should discuss coordination with them

RichL HTML spec suggests do whateve the media queries says

Eric: would like to be involved in that effort as well

<MichaelC> close action-17

<trackbot> ACTION-17 Define CSS attributes and meta data for alternative content selection closed

Actions section completed

<MichaelC> action-17: migrated to PF ACTION-692 http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/Group/track/actions/692

<trackbot> ACTION-17 Define CSS attributes and meta data for alternative content selection notes added

<MichaelC> close action-19

<trackbot> ACTION-19 Work with the Canvas API subteam to include and API for caret tracking that drive magnfication closed

SubTeam Reports

<oedipus> rich, there was a thread on changing the media group tactile to have 2 media types tactual (non-natural language based tactile images) and braille (natural language based tactile output) -- gottfried (i think) and i had an exchange on it and janina liked the idea but thought the verbiage was too confusing -- will follow-up via email

<oedipus> scribenick: oedipus

JF: Media Sub-Team update: making good progress turning requirements into technical requirements
... worked thorugh 50% of requirements
... encourage people outside of subteam to weigh in and offer feedback and comments as things progress
... need to have technical requirements and user requirements stable enough to advance to the HTML WG next week -- perhaps 10 days left before moving reqs higher up the HTML5 food chain

<inserted> scribenick: JF

Thanks to Greg

Steve F on ARIA mappings

not much has happened in the past week

have already provided a change proposal and a bug

HTML chairs have requested bug be expedited

Janina: wants to know about the change Proposal

now that we have a bug, se should now have an agenda item to vote a resolution to advance the change proposal

spec text exists, but what is need is feedback and consensus around the change proposal

SteveF asking about getting a poll around this

Janina: appears process is sticking point - work is ready

can we bring this work to the group for next week?

SteveF: what does this entail?

Janina: should we run a survey on this?

SteveF: makes it a more formal 'support' from the TF

hopefully people will read the proposal before voting - not yet had any response on the draft change propsal

SteveF: suggests overall question: after reviewing the changes, do you support them?

are there more than one question to be asked here?

Rich: everything is in the proposal, (needs some minor edits)

SteveF: we want people to review the text we choose to replace, based upon the proposal

PaulC: not sure if a survey is the best forum for that question/decision

<oedipus> strong plus 1 to CfC

likely could happen via emails

<oedipus> make TF members read the text before commenting

Rich: reason for suggesting a poll is that if people have an issue with a certain section they could highlight

Janina: this could be highly granular quickly

SteveF: the main thrust is that the current starting point is whlely unsuitable in the current spec

what we don't want to get into is a point-by-point comparrison

but rather seeks an alternative starting point

it goes to philosphy more than actual text

Do we support an approach that suggests that ARIA does not introduce a confromance issue

Janina: lets keep it simple

SteveF: we have already put it out for comment, thinks a Chair should ask for 'closure'

Janina: Discussion on remaining deliverables and time-lines

TPAC 2010 Meeting Planning

talking about TPAC as a deadline

some discussion that this might slip slightly

but we are targetting to be comple in this calendar year

ARIA, drag-n-drop...

does anyone think that DnD have issues that will stall beyond year end

the 1 or 2 others are media a11y

and the other is "accesskey"

perhaps looking at a name-change

to access-command

what PF will be forwarding is a set of user requirements

<oedipus> GJR notes that these are set of requirements for satisfying navigational requirements, not on specific attributes or elements -- those will be decided upon by TF

with no recommendation on *how* it is to be met

expect work to start on that within the week

anyone have any thoughts on what work will entail? anyone see a reason why this cannot be completed by end of October?

Greg: have started to take what is in HTML5 re: accesskey to see what (if anything) is lacking

will report back to Tf

looking at accesskey, tabindex and command

this is what is in, this is what is out, and can it (they) meet the requirements

Greg: I beleive we can get this done and fixed

SteveF: what happens with the whole text alternatives issue

Janina: that is still on the agenda

while we still have deliverables, the only one we are not sure we can deliver in time for TPAC is the media issue

everything else appears on target

MikeS: want to mention about DragnDrop that we have seen some feedback

<Zakim> MikeSmithX, you wanted to note that we got feedback from Gez on drag-and-drop http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Jul/0056.html

Janina: Task Force at TPAC - hoping to get this group together then and there

depends on our agenda at that point

<oedipus> i/SubTeam reports/TOPIC: SubTeam Reports/

Next: CAPTCHA survey

Janina: this has been discussed, and this might be resolving iteslf through changes in the spec

Greg: I think we need to keep an eye on this, and if it is out of the next 2 publications, we can rest easy

keep in our back pocket

TF relationship to HTML WG & Keeping 1 up-to-date with the other

Discussion now: we as TF need to become a little more formal about our reccomendations to the WG

we have already sent a number up, and are in process at the WG

encourage all to continue to work on these issues at the higher WG level

if there is a survey we can continue to particpate

Janina: we should discuss how to track these proposals now

we have a responsibility to follow through and tracking our recommendations

is the wiki sufficient to track these issues?

SteveF: Laura has been asking about some ARIA attributes and feedback

on the list, with little feedback outside of SteveF

<oedipus> SteveF post "rationale for role=presentation" http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Jul/0059.html

SteveF thinks however that ARIA-labeledby is not appropriate

and provided his rationale

laura is still looking for other rationales as this is/was a request from the chairs

correction: aria-label is under question, not labeledby

Greg: the text in the spec is not in line with discussion. believes that it needs to be naked attributes without the aria prefix

JF: why?

Greg: believes there are a number of aria properties should be non-prefixed in the spec

<oedipus> JF: saying primary reason to remove prefix is ease-of-authoring? no matter what we call is secondary to functionality needed

<oedipus> JF: have aria deployed today -- in effect, abandoning something trying to establish

<oedipus> JF: could introduce confusion

<oedipus> JF: GJR saying change name of attribute -- but already have implementation into new name with aria- prefix

<oedipus> JF: less author confusion with aria- prefix

<oedipus> JF: get GJR's rationale, but flip side of coin is need to say "don't forget to do these things" and here is how

<oedipus> JF: worried that opening a huge new can of worms -- aria- prefix allows us to advance them all forward -- don't want to go down a rathole

<oedipus> JS: if make change, have to pull back rec and go with another one - could be politically problematic

<eric_carlson> +1 !

SteveF: agrees with JF

<oedipus> SF: advises gregory to bring up in TF

What material changes with the name change?

Greg: aria-* carries a weight with it. what does it mean to the average developer

we need to ensure that things remain backward compatable

if @alt is going to be deprecated or made obsolete then we need to ensure native attributes

SteveF: nobody is suggesting to make ALT obsolte, but rather we want to provide additional means of achieving the end goal

it's about increased choice, not change

Greg: believes that the WG has been putting up barriers for ARIA adoption, and so wants things to be modular

JaninaL if we send a rec forward, and then decide later that it is not correct, we lose cred

Janina: this group voted out the ALT text issue a few weeks back

<oedipus> GJR also doesn't want ARIA "frozen" at 1.0 in HTML5

there was a rationale for labeled a few weeks back

SteveF: Laura keeps asking for that rationale, and it has not come forward
... it is more than just a name-change, it is about introducint something new to HTML5

Greg: feels that use of ARIA in HTML5 that is not native is a kludge

SteveF: user agents can be encouraged to provide equiv. functionality to user as well

Janina: must cut this short as it is the top of hour. Does anyone else want to re-visit this guidance?

suggest moving this discussion onto the list for further follow-up

Suggests making follow-ups on status of recommendations as part of weekly agenda - seems to have met approval

Bug Report Triage & Handling SubTeam Proposal

final item - how to follow up on outstanding open bugs

Mike C and laura logical bug shepards, but looking for other volunteers

- DRAFT -

HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

15 Jul 2010

Attendees

Contents

SubTeam Reports

TPAC 2010 Meeting Planning

TF relationship to HTML WG & Keeping 1 up-to-date with the other

Bug Report Triage & Handling SubTeam Proposal

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output