HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

10 Feb 2011


See also: IRC log


+1.510.367.aaaa, +1.650.468.aabb, Michael_Cooper, paulc, Eric_Carlson, John_Foliot, Steve_Faulkner, Janina_Sajka, Jon_Gunderson, Marco_Ranon, Rich, Cynthia_Shelly
Léonie_Watson, Denis_Boudreau, Laura_Carlson
Janina_Sajka & Mike_Smith


<trackbot> Date: 10 February 2011

<janina> Meeting: HTML-A11Y telecon

<janina> agenda: this

no review of subteam actions

GJR will get to his action item later

action 90 on m cooper not done

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - 90

action 93 - can be closed (drag and drop)

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - 93

<MichaelC> close action-93

<trackbot> ACTION-93 find someone to work on change proposal for drag and drop closed

action 100 on janina unsure about what it is

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - 100

<MichaelC> close action-100

<trackbot> ACTION-100 - talk to Laura about decoupling of "what" from "where" in preparation for discussion in WAI CG closed

janina- its complete

modal attribute for aria action on gregory

janina: we decide we were happy with it on ARIA, only

JF: which path do we want to pursue on modal?

<MichaelC> close action-102

<trackbot> ACTION-102 - draft request for reconsideration on Issue-30 closed

MC: action on janina draft reconsideration on issue 30


<MichaelC> action-103: seems to favour http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20090126

<trackbot> ACTION-103 Compare our WBS results to the 5 existing change proposals on alternative text, looking for best match. notes added

<MichaelC> close action-103

<trackbot> ACTION-103 Compare our WBS results to the 5 existing change proposals on alternative text, looking for best match. closed

subteam reports

RS: google is implementing canvas subtree dom for chrome, will be adding focus ring support with caret not included, we have an upcoming poll on aria, so am working on that
... chrome was not working with main screen reader vendor, but now maki8ng good progres, chuck pritchard is developing cnavas editor

RS; before ARIA industry went to build rich internet app, the problem we had was because developers need to do this, they were prohibited from selling to government, the only reason they couln't make it accessible beacuse the ability for authors to amke it accessble

RS: hixie wants us to provide use cases for every possible use of html, authors have busieness reasons for doing these


RS: do we recommend that authors use standard controls as defined, YES, but if the author wants to go in and do soemthing

accessibility should not be an inhibitor

cynthia: one par of his argument has merit, one of the things he struggles with understanding, aria is fine with previous versions of \HTML, he thjinks he has solved the problem doesn't want to confuse thinsg with non native controls

RS: in our change proposal and in ARIA it states that authors should use standard controls

cynthiaL: should acknowledge there is an improvement

<paulc> The survey on ISSUE-129 closes on Feb 17. Are others going to reply to the survey?

<paulc> Steve's response is in: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ARIAinHTML5-hixiecounter

RS: people can contribute to the group response or they can write their own

paulc: update wiki to have support section

johngund: who decides?

paulc: chairs decide
... looking at strength of objections this is bad, but why

johngund: concept that authors have free choice isn't a strong argument?

paulc: no comment

<JF> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Feb/0205.html

JF: media, 2 issues left to resolve, 1. how to integrate multimedia content, sylvia has posted note about this
... there are 7 proposals about how to acheive this, sense of urgency, request for change proposal by 21st of mont

janaina: claify this is for multiple binary resources

jf: but agout identical resources
... 2 time stamp formats lining up, webvtt and SMPTE-TT, superset of timetext langauge
... should we say anyhting further or let market forces work it out

marco: not a lot happening on the bug front

<janina> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/InstateLongdesc#Suggested_Alternatives_Are_Not_Viable_Solutions

janina: longdesc, theer is a lengthy proposal from laura, intended to function as a request to reconsider longdesc

janaina: thinks its substantive, needs furtehjr tweaking

janina: thinks wai cg needs to be canvassed about this

jf: one note, epub working group looking at html5, want to wait before developing a solution, but may bake their own if nothing comes out

paulc: won't say epub group doesn't want soultions to issues, but thinks last call tiemframe is fine

Correct and Improve <img> Conformance Checker Guidance http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20090126

<JF> SF: People want to have a number of requirements, and don't want others

<JF> which the second option (url posted) seems to cover most of it

<JF> there is a difference between the machine check-able content, and then content that is not machine-checkable

<JF> (This is all related to Issue 31)

<JF> there are 3 main parts to Issue 31

<JF> guidance to validation tools

<JF> image element definition verbiage - what is the source

<JF> the normative content

<JF> 3rd issues - text alternatives and their values


<JF> all of this information is in the link provided by steve

<JF> JS: by memory, option 2 aligns with the consensus from this group, WAI, etc.

<JF> JS: the second issue raised by Laura, is also covered by the WAI consensus postion, that guidance and techniques be under the WAI

<JF> where people go to look for that kind of guidance

<JF> as opposed to where they look for machine conformance guidance

<JF> This is on the WAI CG agenda, but has not yet been discussed by that group

<JF> but has not yet been addressed

<JF> SF: we need to decide on a time line that is acceptable to the WG Chairs

<JF> JS: is there any opposition to splitting this out this way?

<JF> JS: seems we are on the right track here

<JF> SF: if we do agree on this as a group (or as individuals) we should be reviewing this to ensure that we have robust arguments for the points we are in support of

<JF> JS: this is the purpose of the survey

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.135 (CVS log)
$Date: 2011/02/10 17:04:31 $

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/simpte tt/SMPTE-TT/
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: Stevef
Inferring Scribes: Stevef

WARNING: No "Topic:" lines found.

Default Present: +1.510.367.aaaa, +1.650.468.aabb, Michael_Cooper, paulc, Eric_Carlson, John_Foliot, Steve_Faulkner, Janina_Sajka, Jon_Gunderson, Marco_Ranon, Rich, Cynthia_Shelly
Present: +1.510.367.aaaa +1.650.468.aabb Michael_Cooper paulc Eric_Carlson John_Foliot Steve_Faulkner Janina_Sajka Jon_Gunderson Marco_Ranon Rich Cynthia_Shelly
Regrets: Léonie_Watson Denis_Boudreau Laura_Carlson
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Feb/0101.html
Found Date: 10 Feb 2011
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2011/02/10-html-a11y-minutes.html
People with action items: 

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

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]