HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference -- 06 Jan 2011

<trackbot> Date: 06 January 2011

<MikeSmith> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/index.php?title=Scribe_List

<MikeSmith> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Jan/0027.html

<MikeSmith> f2f survey current results

<Leonie_Watson> scribe: Leonie_Watson

f2f planning

<MikeSmith> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/44061/q1-2011_ftf/results

<oedipus> GJR will not be at CSUN but will attend virtually

<MikeSmith> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/44061/q1-2011_ftf/

Next week's meeting

<inserted> scribenick: oedipus

next week on 2011-01-13 we will convene at 1500h UTC, one hour earlier than usual

Subteam reports

JF: please try and get agenda out early so can plan around meeting

<MikeSmith> Media subteam minutes

JF: reviewed bugs marked media -- good progress -- some can close, some are more specifically addressed later in cycle (old bugs reformulated as new bugs with more specifity) -- didn't clear entire list, but did about 70 to 80 percent processed

JS: identifying gaps in reqs media subgroup generated -- a bit more tweaking to document as people return from holiday break

MS: number of deadlines coming up -- is media subgroup on track or need to request more time on any of these issues?

JF: pretty much on track -- going to be tight -- can give better answer next week

JS: think pretty much on track -- somethings being deferred -- forming a group to define WebSRT, working with new W3C audio group -- mixed bag as to how addressing issues, but are processing issues

JF: ... 2 or 3 outstanding issues
... 1. multimedia support in content (sign-language, multi-language tracks)
... 2. @poster "discussion"
... most everything else taken as far as can -- timestamp issue deferral -- identified gaps, but not our place to fill gaps

MS: for prioritizing, biggest issue that need to work on immediately is "track" concept
... don't know current state of things with implementors, but think leaning towards trying to get multimedia support in sooner, rather than later, so need to push on this -- means significant changes to spec that need to be added before CR
... has some potential to block progress to LC

JF: high on list of priorities
... not everyone on call yesterday
... will be turning time and attention to issues i identified

MS: good -- other sub team reports -- canvas?

RS: over break, had a lot of RTE issues (spelling and grammar checking in canvas editor) -- lot of pushback from WHATWG people saying don't want to expose that info from javascript API because of security reasons
... ARIA 1.0 has markup to indicate "invalid" -- never thought about applying them to whole ranges of text in doc; can do also for selection
... instead of worrying about what allow and don't allow, need to tweak ARIA 1.1 to expose info in markup -- better fit for clooud computing -- user shouldn't be limited in RTE experience by limitations of HTML5
... waiting to hear back from FrankO (MS) review of caret and focusRing

<MikeSmith> canvas subteam minutes from 2010-12-20

RS: FrankO hasn't been able to make meetings for over a month, and i can't get in touch with him -- what can be allowed inside canvas subtree

<MikeSmith> canvas subteam minutes from 2010-12-20

RS: sticky point -- spoke with AISquared (screen mag) -- discussion on public-canvas-api@w3.org
... AISquared makes ZoomText

MS: getting them on board very important

RS: working on that -- made a lot of progress despite lack of people

http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/public-canvas-api

http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Canvas

http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Canvas_Minutes

RS: did we discuss modifications to aria implementation section with ARIA going to CR?

MC: not in this context
... ARIA going to CR -- addressing concerns about processing -- need to be addressed in HTML, not ARIA, but still in flux

<MikeSmith> canvas-api discussions from 2010-12

RS: Cyns and i need to work on text for spec

MS: any heads up for HTML WG chairs?

RS: not at moment -- wait until have discussion on friday

MC: correct

MS: bug triage update?

MC: summary: holidays affected subteam as other groups; been trying to stay on-top-of new bugs and bugs that keep coming to attentino as potentially needing TF attention -- alot bassed on LauraC's work
... trying to keep stuff off TF plate -- agree with issue, but not entire TF needs to address; recommend bug filer follow up on their own
... marked bugs as TF priorities if related to work already being conducted in TF
... add keywords and assign to leader of subteams

<JF> +q

MC: not much on "NEEDSINFO" -- assigning out to filer -- aware of february deadline on bug filing that affects subteam

MR: next meeting is tuesday, should have full compliment of people back

JF: observed on media call yesterday that alot of bugs marked "NEEDSINFO" which is inaccurate -- if "NEEDSINFO" not resolved...

MC: that is artifact of how bugzilla system works -- "NEEDSINFO" in resolved state with qualifier
... if marked as "VERIFIED" or "CLOSED" still technically open -- moved off editor's plate back to WG
... when hixie bounces back bug, should assign to original filer -- parhaps not getting reassigned
... triage ST has reassigned a lot of "CLOSED" and "VERIFIED"

MS: updated W3C bugzilla per request -- still long way to go

HTML5 Bug 10525 - Please try to improve Bugzilla's accessibility/usability problems before Last Call http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10525

GJR: please add issues with bugzilla to bug 10525 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10525 master bug for bugzilla related bugs

Longdesc/Verbose Descriptor

<MikeSmith> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/30

MS: chairs chose not to include in spec as obsolete or deprecated (obsolete but conforming")
... when chairs made decision on behalf of WG on this, decision went ahead with formal objection from Leif
... don't have any particular time-pressure to follow up with new info
... have until doc goes to director for some decision for doc transition; there is time to have further discussion on this

JS: PFWG examined this yesterday -- spent time on wiki page GJR and LC put together -- info great start -- compelling use cases and requirements -- need additional implementation details

<JF> +q

GJR: i filed a bug with just the requirements

JS: Laura tracking usage; JF has done a lot of work on implementation and correspondence with devs

<MikeSmith> http://www.pearson.com/

JS: is being used by content creators in useful way
... table for support in UA and AU

GJR: has action item from PFWG to add implementation on longdesc

JS: plugin for mozilla for longdesc; need to know about IE and Webkit; Opera supports but device-dependently
... need to document IE, FF, Webkit and support in ATs in second column

<JF> Opera supports the exposure of longdesc content in the right-click context menu today

JS: cyns trying to find out for IE -- need someone to follow up on Webkit

MS: EricC or JamesC can help

EC: i can help
... JamesC would know off top of his head

JS: will send email to James Craig asking for details on webkit -- if no reply, ping EricC and he will track down info

<JF> +q

MS: have a bit of time due to process to address this -- shouldn't rush -- should be well-formed and terse when submmitted

GJR: i filed a bug on the requirements alone http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10853

JF: no response from chairs as to where they perceive shortcomings -- given many implementation details, but get no traction in HTML WG -- how define "rapid growth"? being supported by CMS (Drupal 7) Wordpress, etc
... specifically gave response -- taking it at face value and asking for clarification which has not been forthcoming

JS: one argument was "no one is using this" or "used in small way, mostly incorrectly"

GJR: this was something specifically added to HTML4 for accessibility

JF: google stats used against us, but that misses the point

JS: probably never going to be high -- quantatitive measure never the intent nor is it appropriate measure of success; there is an identifiable need, support from content providers, UAs, etc. -- that is what needs to be considered, not overall market penetration --

GJR filed a bug on the requirements alone http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10853

JS: verbose descriptor is a need that has not been filled by HTML5

<JF> Revisiting this Issue

<JF> This issue can be reopened if new information come up. Examples of possible relevant new information include:

<JF> * use cases that specifically require longdesc,

<JF> * evidence that correct usage is growing rapidly and that that growth is expected to continue, or

<JF> * widespread interoperable implementation.

JS: supporting existing components: isn't important to build new mechanism in HTML5 context because need to support existing deployements out there no matter what -- removing entirely is wrong approach
... people need to know what to use TODAY, as well as what is coming down the pike

qa/

MS: burden of proof -- not productive use of time to point out flaws in specific decision making
... not helpful to point out to chairs that there are oversights they have been asked to reconsider; comes down to don't have veto power over HTML WG chairs decisions on behalf of chairs; task of charis is to adjudicate decisions; how they do that is up to them, completely
... shouldn't second guess chairs' decision -- we've been over details except for coming up with better arguments
... chairs did not feel that info provided by TF and PF met thjeir quality standards

<JF> +q

MS: point out to chairs that missed something and let them decide afresh

GJR: what to do when info goes into black hole

<JF> +1 to GJR

GJR: fear that being foced into multiple formal objections which will not help our cause

MS: don't have ability to compell chairs to give more feedback on any issuye
... chairs in position to adjudicate -- combative approach not productive

JS: formal objection is not a remedy that is readily at hand
... if need to file Formal Objection, addressed when director reviews for CR -- have to use what remedies exist -- if not getting adeqate response, need to document that because is part of basis of formal obgjection, but FO today, just going to cause more heat than light
... will Formally Object should it be necessary
... deadline is 6 monts off; have to use mechanisms avaiable today and document previous and new requests

MC: 2 classes of issues: 1) dealt with but not to TF satisfaction; 2) issues coming down pike (can request clarification for this to make better proposals for future

JF: need clarification

MS: no! no! no! not productive

JF: clarification from chairs?

MS: can request, but can't force them to respond

JF: i have asked for clarification and have not received it -- can TF ask for clarification on these points from chairs -- give3n 3 criteria

JS: agendum for next meeting -- overtime already
... JF please send email about this topic to public-html-a11y

Overdue Open Actinos

<MikeSmith> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/overdue

MS: some overdue for a while, please take look at list of actions and complete those assigned to them
... at least put comments into tracker if have new info
... start off with actions next week during 2 hour call

LW: @title -- SteveF put together change proposal while i have action to write one -- talked with Steve about it, pretty comprehensive

MS: post to public-html-a11y for review

<inserted> MS: REMINDER--next week meeting starts an hour earlier (1500h) and lasts for 2 hours

[ADJOURNED]

- DRAFT -

HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

06 Jan 2011

Attendees

Contents

f2f planning

Next week's meeting

Subteam reports

Longdesc/Verbose Descriptor

Overdue Open Actinos

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output