01:29:25 MikeSmith has joined #html-a11y
01:40:47 MichaelC_ has joined #html-a11y
03:18:59 MichaelC_ has joined #html-a11y
03:35:03 MichaelC_ has joined #html-a11y
05:02:25 davidb has joined #html-a11y
15:57:48 RRSAgent has joined #html-a11y
15:57:48 logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/01/20-html-a11y-irc
15:57:50 RRSAgent, make logs world
15:57:50 Zakim has joined #html-a11y
15:57:52 Zakim, this will be 2119
15:57:52 ok, trackbot; I see WAI_PFWG(HTML TF)11:00AM scheduled to start in 3 minutes
15:57:53 Meeting: HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference
15:57:53 Date: 20 January 2011
15:57:53 paulc has joined #html-a11y
15:57:57 agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Jan/0201.html
15:58:11 regrets: Laura_Carlson, Marco_Ranon, Léonie_Watson
15:58:14 WAI_PFWG(HTML TF)11:00AM has now started
15:58:15 chair: Mike_Smith
15:58:21 +John_Foliot
15:59:41 regrets+ Kenny_Johar,Joshue_O'Connor,Silvia_Pfieffer
15:59:46 +Gregory_Rosmaita
15:59:49 -John_Foliot
15:59:51 +John_Foliot
15:59:55 janina has joined #html-a11y
15:59:55 +Mike
16:00:25 zakim, call janina
16:00:25 ok, janina; the call is being made
16:00:27 +Janina
16:00:31 kliehm has joined #html-a11y
16:00:44 Trying to join on Zakim, but my machine has been asleep for 3 weeks and it is taking some time to get going today!
16:00:53 +Eric_Carlson
16:00:57 eric has joined #html-a11y
16:01:19 +Michael_Cooper
16:02:00 +??P25
16:02:09 +[Microsoft]
16:02:22 zakim, [Microsoft] has paulc
16:02:22 +paulc; got it
16:03:08 +Rich_Schwerdtfeger
16:03:20 No sympathy requested or expected.
16:03:23 +Sean_Hayes
16:03:33 http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/index.php?title=Scribe_List
16:04:40 Topic: Face to Face
16:04:44 SeanH has joined #html-a11y
16:04:56 RS: mike are you coming?
16:05:15 MS: travelling to cambridge to meet with administration/management -- may stay in U.S. for couple of weeks
16:05:29 MS: probably need to figure out travel and plan on attending
16:05:35 JS: hoping that PaulC could attend
16:05:40 MS: would be in San Diego
16:05:48 PC: in Ottowa
16:06:02 PC: been gone for 3 weeks - -have to catch up -- exact dates?
16:06:11 JS: 19 and 20 March 2011 (Saturday/Sunday)
16:06:16 PC: week aftger SXSW
16:06:27 JS: yes, venue and date due to CSUN conferenfce
16:06:31 scribenick: oedipus
16:07:09 PC: will get back to JS and MS on attendance -- would seriously like to attend -- may be going to SXSW -- have to coordinate
16:07:21 JF has joined #html-a11y
16:07:34 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Jan/0148.html Confirmed Face to Face meeting of HTML Accessibility Task Force
16:07:42 MS: MCooper posted details to list confirming times and dates and location
16:07:53 MS: anything new MCooper?
16:08:03 MC: meeting page without full info yet
16:08:19 i/RS: mike are you/scribenick: oedipus/
16:08:19 -> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/ftf_2011-03 Face to Face meeting page
16:08:42 MC: assumption is will be in meeting room of Hyatt in San Diego -- not confirmed -- up to host
16:09:12 MC: create registration survey and post to public-html-a11y
16:09:55 Stevef has joined #html-a11y
16:10:01 TOPIC: Survey on Text Alternatives
16:10:30 -> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/44061/201101-issue-31/results results of survey on text alternatives
16:10:51 scribenick: Stevef
16:10:54 whats going to be done with the survey?
16:11:54 regrets+ Leonie_Watson,Marco_Ranon
16:12:21 SF: didn't go into detail in comments, but could....
16:12:49 MS: purpose of survey collect data responses on consensus within group about various exceptions -- exceptions for cases where 1 can omit @alt
16:12:55 survey closed, purpose to collect data and responses on text alternatives do we have consensus on exceptions
16:13:05 MS: want to decide which exceptions we support, and which we don't
16:13:10 SF: need more reasoning?
16:13:24 MS: need more respondents -- but is that necessary?
16:13:25 not worth providing more reasoning
16:13:30 MS: how to procede?
16:13:31 +martin_kliehm
16:13:55 JS: survey do we have support for a particular proposal
16:14:27 GJR: propose that we give TF members another week to fill out survey
16:14:31 JS: on alt text in HTML5, look at survey and compare to chart of lauras
16:14:40 q?
16:15:56 MC: not opposed but not for extending survey
16:16:33 +Cynthia_Shelly
16:16:53 GJR: if summarize results and post to public-html-a11y can give TF members a chance to evaluate and endorse
16:17:16 MS: muliple change proposals will proceed through wroking group anyway, should taskforce endorse one or more
16:17:27 JS: mike is right
16:18:27 JS: a range of probabilities, where is the consensus?
16:18:29 JF: seem to be clear trends in survey
16:20:30 -Mike
16:20:37 JS: if we have consnensus maybe we don't need more numbers
16:21:00 oedipus has joined #html-a11y
16:21:50 JS: lets take the trended responses and refere to chnage proposals
16:21:56 plus 1
16:21:56 BRB
16:22:03 http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/44061/201101-issue-31/results
16:22:06 q+
16:22:42 ack Stevef
16:23:02 MikeSmith_ has joined #html-a11y
16:24:04 SF: in agreement with trends -- 1 for aria-labelledby conforming text alternative and role="presentation" -- disagree with these because neither fulfill same role as @alt in browsers, no indication UAs will treat the 2 in the same way, and there is open hostility to using ARIA-annotations to "fix" normal display in UAs
16:24:05 Zakim, call Mike
16:24:05 ok, MikeSmith; the call is being made
16:24:07 +Mike
16:24:17 SF: for aria-labelledby, how would serve as text equivalent?
16:24:27 SF: empty @alt with role="presentation"
16:24:54 SF: graphical browsers, when image loading turned off, needs a non-ARIA solution -- what is missing is some plan or proposal for how UAs will implement this
16:25:17 CS: underspecced aria-labelledby and role="presentation" for "regular user agents"
16:25:20 a+
16:25:22 a+
16:25:23 q+
16:26:29 SF: looked into aria-labelledby quite a bit in composing Alt Text Techs -- have not found aria-labelledby sufficient to replace @alt -- may be useful in case where one uses FIGURe and FIGCAPTION/CAPTION but haven't found good use cases for it
16:26:45 RS: use labelledby when have text that is visible -- if embedded text, use aria-label
16:27:16 SF: understand use cases -- what i haven't found is evidence for use of aria-labelledby without an @alt without an image on a web page
16:27:21 RS: if have @alt, use it
16:27:25 q?
16:27:25 SF: true
16:27:57 RS: if have large chart and have the title for chart then there is your labelledby value, but separate from chart
16:28:04 CS: use cases for no @alt
16:28:20 CS: suggestion is not require aria-labelleby, but that it is ok to use
16:28:22 q?
16:29:12 +q
16:29:14 SF: can't come up with reason to use aria-labelleby that is superior to using @alt
16:29:27 RS: big picture with short name (CAPTION for sighted users)
16:29:41 SF: that is what FIGCAPTION is for
16:30:06 SF: if caption element, make relationship programmatic between image and caption
16:30:44 SF: issue with describedby and labelledby -- if have text elsewhere on page, when get to imagtte, hear referenced text -- still hear text when read-all --
16:30:47 q?
16:31:00 should we be concerned that a group of the world's accessibility experts can't agree on how to label an image?
16:31:15 SF: aria-labelledby scenario -- in application mode -- not getting access to on-screen text -- moving between focusable elements
16:31:18 q?
16:33:12 GJR: role isn't defined in HTML5 spec
16:33:21 GJR: need to pin down what a @role in HTML5 is
16:33:39 RS: aria-integration -- role refers to section of ARIA where role attribute defined
16:33:47 RS: had to update the sectionin the aria spec to define role
16:33:50 +q
16:33:59 qck oe
16:34:01 ack oe
16:34:09 RS: have to define @role
16:34:13 GJR: says its based upon the concept of the role attribute bit not referenced
16:34:19 ack JF
16:35:19 JF: if alt is not present then others will suffice
16:36:10 SF: if have a piece of text that is referenced by aria-labelledby, that text becomes accessible name value for image -- no semantic distincition
16:36:53 JF: always said that @alt should never be supplied by machine -- same rule for labelledby -- can't be assigned programmatically or by authoring tool
16:37:14 SF: that ends up doing the same thing as @alt does
16:37:23 SF: got a heirarchy of things
16:37:34 GJR: we want a cascascade of equivalency
16:39:12 SF: when issue of providing reason for aria-labelledby use i came up with Flickr to re-use heading or title on page for image (if one image on page or one image in DIV) -- TITLE best for aria-labelledby
16:39:24 SF: different from authoring practices -- limitation of tool
16:39:44 SF: auto-generated web page, should create a relationship automatically
16:39:54 MS: what actions can we take away to move this forward?
16:40:33 MS: not saying don't need progress on these issues, but unsure of where to go from here -- could say disagree with some deatails of change proposals -- first task: find out what TF feels about change proposals
16:40:45 MS: change proposals will move forward if submitted by individuals
16:40:45 q?
16:41:01 MS: what is the TF role in this?
16:41:16 JS: did survey results highlight agreement?
16:41:32 JS: Laura charted what supported -- need comparison
16:41:40 JS: somebodey needs to compare chnage proposals
16:41:43 JS: extend survey -- not going to hold anything up
16:41:56 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/01/20-html-a11y-minutes.html oedipus
16:42:01 JS: lest extend the discussion
16:42:17 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/01/20-html-a11y-minutes.html oedipus
16:42:30 MS: you and i can talk about this lets extend survey for another week
16:42:43 MS: subteam reports
16:42:52 i/SF: didn't go into detail/scribenick: oedipus/
16:43:08 i/survey closed, purpose to collect data and responses/scribenick: Stevef/
16:43:23 i/MS: want to decide which exceptions/scribenick: oedipus/
16:43:38 i/not worth providing more reasoning/scribenick: Stevef/
16:43:46 MS: media subteam any bdiscussion about feedback from google?
16:43:47 JS: not discussed but make way to talk about it next week
16:44:06 i/SF: in agreement with trends/scribenick: oedipus/
16:44:37 i/RS: had to update the sectionin the aria spec to define role/scribenick: SteveF/
16:44:42 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/01/20-html-a11y-minutes.html oedipus
16:45:08 s/a+//
16:45:11 JS: talked about poster issue, various points of disagreement, we uncovered another requirement whcichis not documented yet
16:45:41 JS: no programmatic way to tell browser i don't want autoplay
16:45:52 MichaelC_ has joined #html-a11y
16:46:11 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Jan/0152.html Google feedback on HTML5 media a11y (Silvia Pfieffer)
16:46:43 MS: sounds like a big deal, next step? do we need to file a bug/
16:46:53 JF: yes absolutley
16:47:06 JS: can you file the bug?
16:47:12 JF: yes
16:48:31 MS: move on it sooner ratrher than later
16:48:35 +Michael_Cooper.a
16:48:46 eric:not sure if its a user agent problem or not
16:49:02 MichaelC__ has joined #html-a11y
16:49:34 MS: google feedback is good should act on it pronto, nit delay
16:51:34 http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Canvas/Meetings
16:51:40 http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Canvas/Meetings/Minutes#Canvas_Accessibility_Teleconferences:_2011
16:51:58 -Michael_Cooper
16:52:42 rich: close on focus ring, still working on caret, google may join the meetings
16:52:42 the EXPERTS (AISquared) said they need caret even without RTE
16:53:35 -Sean_Hayes
16:53:48 RS: use contenteditable?
16:53:51 SF: using the DOM
16:54:22 RS: if use DOM and not using canvas, still have to deal with grammar and spelling errors -- problems that don't go away -- plus NEED a caret
16:54:44 RS: same set of problems with RTE or other interactive CANVAS implementations
16:55:11 RS: caret helps with positioning of text -- populated to a11y API layer -- only thing left is grammar and spell-checking
16:55:57 RS: use case: VM access to a Unix system -- wrote modification to canvas that intercepts drawing calls that would create virtual desktop via CANVAS so can work on own machine remotely using CANVAS
16:56:08 RS: once 1 has canvas, 1 opens a HUGE bucket of worms
16:56:18 MS: should investigate in more detail
16:56:32 SF: ARIA mapping call
16:57:17 SF: hixie provided an alternative counter proposal -- some things quite useful -- pointed out errors and issues with alt spec text -- started to work way through to pull out items that need further discussion
16:57:51 SF: won't make major difference if don't include the changes that have been suggested for spec text -- worth discussing the bits to get down to core issues
16:58:04 SF: me, Rich, DBolter, Cyns will attend next week
16:58:30 SF: put hixie's counter proposal in wiki
16:59:01 SF: now counter propasal has been submitted, have time to respond -- can we modify our proposal to reflect new information?
16:59:14 [TWO MINUTE WARNING]
17:00:39 PC: if can't get consensus on initial change proposal and do call for counter-proposal and info in counter-proposal contains info that means original change proposal needs tweaking -- best thing to do if impact original change proposal, tell chairs that and negotiate a schedule before chairs run survey
17:01:06 PC: make clear to WG and counter-proposal author how trying to take their comments in consideration by chaning change proposal
17:01:13 PC: short answer: yes
17:01:24 SF: hixie posted bug on this -- claimed won't be implemented
17:02:19 SF: HTML to A11y API mapping hixie claims not needed; browser vendors disagreed, now hixie posted bug against whole thing to reflect his change of mind, but no details on ISSUE-129 -- when wilil he elaborate on his thinking?
17:02:41 SF: need to know what hixie intends to put into spec before can comment
17:02:44 MS: understood
17:03:28 PC: should make clear from your position what you believe is blocking next step -- write email to make clear to chairs that don't want to proceede to survey until all info available and all parties have time to reflect on issue
17:03:48 PC: also, ask me questions when i am here (and i try to make all the meetings i can)
17:04:10 SF: reasonable questions asked yield no response -- what to do other than wait?
17:04:32 SF: deafining silence in some areas
17:04:48 PC: if feel that is happening, please send me a private note -- going to drop off for HTML WG call
17:04:57 MS: bug-triage update?
17:05:40 -[Microsoft]
17:05:47 MC: dealing with bugs, want to mark verified and close, but not original filer, so in limbo -- want to know how much discretion is up to triage team
17:05:52 JF: who filed bugs?
17:05:56 MC: various people
17:06:17 JF: contributor@whatwg.org bugs been mostly closed
17:06:32 q+
17:06:46 MS: for those, once triage team reviews, TF has to take ownership so that action can be taken on them
17:06:49 q?
17:07:07 -Rich_Schwerdtfeger
17:07:08 MS: if no one complains, then ok -- if complaints, then deal with them as specific problems
17:07:22 q?
17:07:24 sorry, had to drop
17:07:27 ack kliehm
17:07:30 richardschwerdtfe has left #html-a11y
17:07:55 MK: we can verify without problem -- Laura wanted to know once a bug is verified/fixed original reporter has 2 week time frame to close or reply -- if no reply, closes automatically after 2 weeks
17:08:01 MC: process feature?
17:08:03 MS: yes
17:08:09 MC: a lot of bugs are still open
17:08:27 MK: ok to verify bug -- next person who comes across it can close it
17:08:37 MC: didn't have that understanding
17:08:49 MS: think in decision policy document
17:08:56 MC: says bug closes, but not who closes it
17:09:13 MS: should raise as decision policy bug -- will look into this today and talk to chairs about this
17:09:22 Once a bug is verified the reporter has two weeks to respond, otherwise the bug can be closed.
17:09:31 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/01/20-html-a11y-minutes.html oedipus
17:10:06 -Michael_Cooper.a
17:10:11 -Mike
17:10:13 -kliehm
17:10:15 -Janina
17:10:16 -Eric_Carlson
17:10:16 -Gregory_Rosmaita
17:10:18 -??P25
17:10:20