HTML-A11Y telecon

12 Aug 2010


See also: IRC log


Eric, John_Foliot, kliehm, Gregory_Rosmaita, Denis_Boudreau, Janina, Ben_Caldwell, Cynthia_Shelly, Marco_Ranon, paulc, Steve_Faulkner, Jim_Allan_(IRC_only)
Laura_Carlson, Sylvia_Pfieffer, Kenny_Johar, Leif_Halvard_Silli, Aurélien_Levy


<dboudreau> my point of view is I'll go for a non-valid docuemnt if I ever need the longdesc attribute in some page

<eric_carlson> thanks Zakim!

<janina> agenda: this

<kliehm> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Scribe_List

<scribe> scribe: Gregory_Rosmaita

<scribe> scribenick: oedipus


JS: MikeSmith will chair next 2 meetings

Action Items Review

<paulc> Sorry I am late, drove 560km this morning

<JF> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/open


<trackbot> ACTION-47 -- Steve Faulkner to file a bug with HTML 5 about making autocomplete consistent with ARIA, per comment 289 http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/Group/comments/update?comment_id=289 -- due 2010-07-29 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/47


<trackbot> ACTION-50 -- Janina Sajka to add some introductory text to requirement docs clarifying that these are user requirements, not necessarily UA requirements -- due 2010-07-08 -- CLOSED

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/50

Actions Review

CS: Steve and I worked on draft to update the change proposal based on feedback from MJS -- came up with list of things, RS and i sent text to steve to integrate -- thought would be available today, but haven't yet seen it
... have tuesday meeting next week to review
... hope is will be able to bring to TF next thrusday and then to WG and then for review for 2 to 3 weeks by HTML WG

JS: good plan

CS: will probably be discussed in HTML WG telecon next hour

Subteam Reports: Canvas; ARIA Mappings; Media; Bug Triage

<kliehm> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/open

JS: Canvas: no action; heard from Cynthia about mapping - hope to move revised rationale in this meeting next week
... drag and drop stuck due to vacations

JF: media -- very productive conference calls for last few weeks -- very in depth conversation of particular points -- at point where believe had req docuemtn that is complete -- please review if haven't looked at or checked recently -- think haev done our due dilligence

JS: still waiting for a couple of additions from JudyB

JF: yes, but most of intent has been succesfully captured
... next step: proposals emerging -- action-50 is create a matrix or grid to list technical reqs as agnostically as possible -- identified key things, capture as tech req, assign priority to it to help guide development and keep discussion focused and on track
... document has rough outline in my head -- took on action-50 to get together for end of the month
... will probably get most work done when on vacation

JS: expectation for matrix -- view of what type of technologies are needed to satifisfy user reqs we identified
... cannot rely on exissting containers to handle synchronization -- have to support 3rd party for sign language as primary track -- very important

JF: asynchronous synchronization -- how to insert a 20 minute description into a 10 minute clip; processing media content is complex, but no native way for container to do that -- one of issues identified

JS: proofs-of-concepts based on user requirements -- some have been around for years

TF Recommendations Followup:

<kliehm> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Bugs/Bugs_Awaiting_A11yTF_Keyword_Decision

<kliehm> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Aug/0013.html

MK: list of bugs -- 41 -- others are not important enough or don't meet reqs - some can be followed up by individuals and not TF
... will have telecon next tuesday to examine remaining 21

JS: very good news -- thanks for helping progress that issue

azkim, take up agendum 4

JS: decision from HTML WG chairs regarding HTML WG Issue-30 (longdesc)

<dboudreau> i will contribute to the formal objection... trying to see if I need to object myself or simply support someone else's

JS: JF posted intent to object and others have signed up -- i am composing email response -- did not see direct response to the TF/PF/WAI Consensus recs on @alt; some additional issues as well
... please keep discussion constructive -- bottom line is that have requirement that can't be satisfied -- there are implementations out there -- Oracle already indicated that it uses longdesc everytime there is a screen shot
... what may have gotten lost is requirement for a verbose descriptor without replacement

<kliehm> I have a longdesc on this party flyer - feel free to use it as a use case: http://bembelterror.de/frankfurt/bday-2007

JS: can do better than longdesc mechanism from HTML 4.01 but perhaps not under HTML WG timelines
... re-read WAI Consensus rec -- missing is ability to reference verbose descriptor either an extrernal file (longdesc) or if description in same doc as image can use aria-describedby
... ARIA 2.0 to do item is to make aria-describedby capable of referencing an external as well as internal resource

JF: my question: is this TF going to support a formal objection?

<dboudreau> bottom line, we need a mechanism allowing to come up with a structured description for a complex image. Can we consider working on something else or should we fight for @longdesc?

JF: i've already personally committed to launching formal objection -- intend to follow through on this as individual -- non-W3C communication from a chair that dismissively comments on capacities and capabilities of HTML A11y TF -- that's another issue for another space, but i will formally object
... if HTML A11y TF wants to persue further, will work with TF members on formal objection, but if my tack is different from TF's will file as individual
... what should be the next step?

PC: understand why TF takes position -- if 1 chair has to present formal objection to director, much better if supporters are clearly identified -- encourage formal objection to list individuals and orgs that support it

<dboudreau> Paul does this mean that without a support from browser vendors, the formal objection wouldn't hold much chance of being heard?

JS: on process of TF -- part of HTML WG and part of PFWG -- may be better for WAI iteself to raise objection -- still on tabel -- more i look at it, more concerned i am -- very primary req
... possible that there will be formal objection from inside WAI -- possibly PF -- reference guidance this TF provided -- approx 76% approval via WBS
... people did what should do in HTML40 and WCAG20 and we don't have a next step without longdesc

JF: concern: if use longdesc in fully conforming HTML5 doc only problem is can't validate -- works in browsers with native longdesc support -- can get longdesc using Opera and FireFox
... now have 2 of four/five major browsers provide native support for longdesc; will always be rendered by browsers that support HTML4
... chairs justifications completely missed the point
... comments about bad meta data and abuse of longdesc a canard

CS: can we negotiate? don't want to spend political capital on longdesc

JS: 2 statements -- are we still open to negotiation

PC: w3c proccess should attempt to find solution that causes least amount of dissent; chairs chose what felt caused least amount of dissent -- best way to indicate we were wrong is to file formal objection which puts ball back in chairs' court -- can go back, look at formal objection to see if changes opinion -- other option is acknowledge formal objection and carry forward when talk to director coming OUT of last call -- going to LC is WG decision -- as c

<JF> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Aug/att-0112/issue-30-decision.html

PC: might request expidited action from director -- haven't yet discussed with HTML WG co-chairs

<JF> Q

GJR: not about specific elements but about leaving use case/need for verbose descriptors referenceable externally or internaly not satisfied

JF: when next heartbeat req?

PC: chairs chose to attempt to get WDs published in june so could have another pub cycle before AC/TPAC meeting in november 2010 in lyons -- based only on chairs' discussion -- not consensus from WG

JF: thanks -- helps logistically

JS: bottom line: several strands of discontent -- bottom line is missing a key requirement (verbose descriptor) so question is what to tell those using longdesc and supporting longdesc -- anticipate a formal objection if not a couple of them

<dboudreau> no we're not done

JS: not done discussing by any means

PC: as the co-chair who attends these meetings i will bring this forward -- best way to deal with TF-WG tension is to confront directly -- will carry message back to samR and MJS -- will also convey to them what i said with chair's hat on

JS: will be joining WG call at top of hour

PC: very possible that monday meeting agenda could be added to by Janina or Judy

JS: appreciate PC's dedication to attending TF meetings

PC: discussion on monday would be best way to discuss dissent

JS: wanted to let others know that this is being addressed at the proper levels using the proper communications channels

PC: agree with transparency
... chairs thread that dealt with this had 5 people on it -- me, SamR, MJS, PhL, and mikeTMsmith -- by copying mike thought could get TF input, but i see your point -- might have been better to distribute this more widely

JS: MikeSmith is co-facillitator -- may not have been on his radar

PC: JS your comment has merit

[steve faulkner joins]

SF: from report got back from meeting with cynthia and rich and chairs -- questions about whether we missed some mappings (fixed through addition) second part is developing reasoning behind changes in new text for spec
... in process of collating that -- will be adding to ChangeProposal wiki page providing additional detail we were asked for - should be available next week -- want to check a few things with RichS who is on vacation
... will be ready for review before next week's TF telecon

CS: will we have a tuesday meeting?

SF: yes
... will send out agenda for tuesday with link to updated docs a.s.a.p.

JS: next week is week to get done

SF: question: CS will you be on HTML WG call to pass message on?

CS: Paul and i and Janina will be on WG call, so is covered

PC: SF you are on vacation, so one of us can communicate status to WG


<dboudreau> I guess some of us will discuss it further outside this meeting

CS: objection to longdesc more vociferous in this call than previous

JS: biggest problem is that there isn't a substitute/replacement mechanism for providing verbose descriptors
... statistics may be skewed by longdesc maintained by corps and orgs behind a firewall
... this may not be the top priority but it is a fundamental priority

CS: worried about perceptions of us reacting to this first rejection -- may come off as complianers

<dboudreau> there are much more important issues to be discussed than longdesc but it becomes a priority if time is of the essence to react...

<Stevef> ISSUE-109: change ARIA section title and add extra text about use of ARIA - Straw Poll for Objections

<trackbot> Sorry... adding notes to ISSUE-109 failed, please let sysreq know about it

<Stevef> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/issue-109-objection-poll/

JF: doesn't lessen it -- not religious on how to achieve, but need to achieve well-described functionality

JS: short inline (alternative) text and more verbose description (external or internal, external can be pulled into doc to make internal)

<JF> q

CS: not saying don't due, but there is a cost attached

JF: cost attached to not doing as well

JS: until have replacement, need to keep longdesc

SF: please answer poll by 19 August 2010 http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/issue-109-objection-poll/ -- doesn't go to heart of issue and contains some irrelevancies

JS: every TF member is an HTML WG member, so please fill out survey cited by SteveF above

<dboudreau> thanks all, take care

<scribe> meeting: HTML A11y Task Force Weekly Teleconference

meeting+ HTML A11y Task Force Weekly Teleconference

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.135 (CVS log)
$Date: 2010/08/12 16:17:55 $

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/internally/internaly not satisfied/
Found Scribe: Gregory_Rosmaita
Found ScribeNick: oedipus

WARNING: Replacing list of attendees.
Old list: Janina Sean Plh John_Foliot Eric Silvia Kenny_Johar Judy
New list: Eric John_Foliot kliehm Gregory_Rosmaita Denis_Boudreau Janina Ben_Caldwell Cynthia_Shelly Marco_Ranon paulc Steve_Faulkner

Default Present: Eric, John_Foliot, kliehm, Gregory_Rosmaita, Denis_Boudreau, Janina, Ben_Caldwell, Cynthia_Shelly, Marco_Ranon, paulc, Steve_Faulkner
Present: Eric John_Foliot kliehm Gregory_Rosmaita Denis_Boudreau Janina Ben_Caldwell Cynthia_Shelly Marco_Ranon paulc Steve_Faulkner Jim_Allan_(IRC_only)
Regrets: Laura_Carlson Sylvia_Pfieffer Kenny_Johar Leif_Halvard_Silli Aurélien_Levy
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Aug/0026.html
Got date from IRC log name: 12 Aug 2010
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2010/08/12-html-a11y-minutes.html
People with action items: 

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]