00:09:52 Judy has joined #html-a11y
01:06:09 Judy has joined #html-a11y
01:18:38 Judy has joined #html-a11y
01:53:22 janina has left #html-a11y
02:18:02 Judy has joined #html-a11y
02:38:46 judy_ has joined #html-a11y
04:32:34 MichaelC_ has joined #html-a11y
05:01:28 silvia has joined #html-a11y
05:21:56 MikeSmith has joined #html-a11y
05:30:38 silvia has joined #html-a11y
06:06:55 silvia has joined #html-a11y
15:58:18 RRSAgent has joined #html-a11y
15:58:18 logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/02/17-html-a11y-irc
15:58:20 RRSAgent, make logs world
15:58:20 Zakim has joined #html-a11y
15:58:22 Zakim, this will be 2119
15:58:22 ok, trackbot; I see WAI_PFWG(HTML TF)11:00AM scheduled to start in 2 minutes
15:58:23 Meeting: HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference
15:58:23 Date: 17 February 2011
15:58:31 zakim, this is 2119
15:58:32 ok, MichaelC; that matches WAI_PFWG(HTML TF)11:00AM
15:58:34 agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Feb/0154.html
15:58:37 zakim, who is on the call
15:58:37 I don't understand 'who is on the call', paulc
15:58:38 zakim, who's on the phone?
15:58:39 On the phone I see [Microsoft], Gregory_Rosmaita, John_Foliot
15:58:55 zakim, [Microsoft] has paulc
15:58:55 +paulc; got it
15:59:10 kliehm has joined #html-a11y
15:59:30 regrets: Marco_Ranon, Laura_Carlson
15:59:49 chair: Janina_Sajka
16:00:41 richardschwerdtfe has joined #html-a11y
16:01:21 +kliehm
16:01:24 +Rich
16:01:39 +??P9
16:01:55 janina has joined #html-a11y
16:02:10 zakim, who's here?
16:02:10 On the phone I see [Microsoft], Gregory_Rosmaita, John_Foliot, kliehm (muted), Rich, ??P9
16:02:12 [Microsoft] has paulc
16:02:13 On IRC I see janina, richardschwerdtfe, kliehm, Zakim, RRSAgent, paulc, MichaelC, oedipus, Judy, davidb, MikeSmith, trackbot, [tm]
16:02:26 +Michael_Cooper
16:02:55 zakim, ??P9 is Janina_Sajka
16:02:55 +Janina_Sajka; got it
16:04:07 +??P11
16:04:23 Zakim, P11 is me
16:04:23 sorry, MikeSmith, I do not recognize a party named 'P11'
16:04:29 Zakim, ??P11 is me
16:04:29 +MikeSmith; got it
16:04:32 Meeting: HTML-A11Y telecon
16:04:32 Chair: Janina_Sajka
16:04:32 agenda: this
16:04:32 agenda+ Identify Scribe http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/index.php?title=Scribe_List
16:04:32 agenda+ Actions Review http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/open
16:04:33 agenda+ Is ARIA Normative for HTML5? http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11892
16:04:35 agenda+ Subteam Reports: Canvas; ARIA Mappings; Media; Bug Triage
16:04:37 agenda+ Face to Face Agenda Discussion
16:04:39 agenda+ Keyboard Access Update http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Jul/0105.html
16:04:41 agenda+ Forms Accessibility
16:04:43 agenda+ Issue-30 longdesc--Updates?
16:04:45 agenda+ be done
16:04:57 scribe: Martin_Kliehm
16:05:03 scribenick: kliehm
16:06:55 zakim, move to agendum 2
16:06:55 agendum 2. "Actions Review http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/open" taken up [from janina]
16:07:52 MC: Action-22 Testing sub-team is moving forward in particular in the ARIA field
16:07:53 issue-134?
16:07:53 ISSUE-134 does not exist
16:08:17 Leonie_Watson has joined #html-a11y
16:08:39 GJR: keep action open -- will complete today and alert list
16:09:44 action-101 due 3 March
16:09:44 ACTION-101 - email ARIA Caucus to request a "modal" attribute for ARIA due date now 3 March
16:11:00 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11892
16:11:10 + +44.117.929.aaaa
16:11:17 action-104?
16:11:17 ACTION-104 -- Frank Olivier to post question to HTML working group on whether to limit HTML elements in non-visible content such as the Canvas fallback content -- due 2011-02-14 -- OPEN
16:11:17 http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/104
16:11:30 +Cynthia_Shelly
16:11:43 zakim, move to agendum 3
16:11:43 agendum 3. "Is ARIA Normative for HTML5? http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11892" taken up [from janina]
16:12:36 q+ to say that HTML5 annotations for a11y content should be based on ARIA concepts, but not be bound to a specific release of ARIA
16:12:41 zakim, +44 is Léonie_Watson
16:12:41 +Léonie_Watson; got it
16:12:42 RS/JS: Would inclusion of ARIA in HTML spec inhibit the extensibility of the ARIA spec?
16:13:13 RS: I think they should be normative.
16:13:19 q?
16:13:38 JF has joined #html-a11y
16:14:59 .
16:15:23 propose that we de-couple ARIA qua ARIA from EVERY markup language -- the concepts have to sync so that A11y APIs know what to do
16:15:28 q?
16:15:38 ack oe
16:15:38 oedipus, you wanted to say that HTML5 annotations for a11y content should be based on ARIA concepts, but not be bound to a specific release of ARIA
16:15:46 MS: Integrating things into HTML requires a binding to the HTML spec. If we take SVG and MathML, which are kind of an exception because they also have elements, the SVG group had concerns that SVG would only work in browsers, but not seperately in an SVG player. Though the player could interpret HTML5. ARIA could take a similar approach.
16:16:23 +1 to oedipus
16:16:53 Gregory: I propose that we decouple ARIA from every languageso that it stays extensible. ARIA will become better and better and avoids the trap of being stuck in one particular spec.
16:17:17 MS: That would be the ideal solution, the question is whether it's possible.
16:17:53 MS: There's a formal objection that we need to have the ARIA attributes defined, so there's a limit what you can decouple.
16:18:13 personally, i would MUCH rather have the annotations for a11y content section removed and repopulated throughout the spec where individual features are introduced/defined
16:18:57 agree about @role -- definitely MUST be native to HTML4
16:19:09 s/native to HTML4/native to HTML5/
16:21:16 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/02/17-html-a11y-minutes.html oedipus
16:23:30 RS: There are examples like media queries that are fairly separate, so it works. The lexical part could be normative, but others need to be separate because they will continue to be developed.
16:23:32 RS: ARIA supports the accessibility APIs, but doesn't have any impact on the standard function. So it's separate.
16:24:09 q?
16:25:12 MS: I don't quite understand the design decisions behind the ARIA spec. I had a similar problem with MathML where we had an element and asked ourselves how it would be interpreted by ARIA. The answer was that by design it was undefined so that other sopecs would be able to expand.
16:25:25 s/sopecs/specs/
16:27:58 RS: If aria-grab=false indicates it's grabable, but false means it can't be grabbed. If we didn't define it in ARIA, because of the design of HTML5 attributes it would be impossible to set it to false. The processing should be part of the host language, but it needs to be coordinated.
16:28:53 RS: Anything else like custom strings is not an issue because you could just define name-value pairs.
16:29:35 http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/elements.html#global-attributes
16:29:47 http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/content-models.html#annotations-for-assistive-technology-products-aria
16:29:48 http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/elements.html#global-attributes
16:30:10 "Authors may use the ARIA role and aria-* attributes on HTML elements"
16:30:27 "The following attributes are common to and may be specified on all HTML elements (even those not defined in this specification):"
16:31:18 Marco_Ranon has joined #html-a11y
16:33:11 MS: If you take Ian's question in the bug report it asks where the attributes should be defined.
16:33:12 RS: If external specs conflict with the host language like in the example above that needs to be solved. That's a lexical processing. That should allow ARIA to expand. If we introduce new ARIA roles in ARIA 2.0 we could define a "detail" role to reflect the new element in HTML5.
16:34:14 MS: I understand what Ian is asking, I'll respond.
16:34:41 should i file a bug against the spec to get http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/first_2_paragraphs_of_definition_of_img into the spec?
16:34:44 zakim, agenda?
16:34:44 I see 9 items remaining on the agenda:
16:34:45 1. Identify Scribe http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/index.php?title=Scribe_List [from janina]
16:34:48 2. Actions Review http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/open [from janina]
16:34:50 3. Is ARIA Normative for HTML5? http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11892 [from janina]
16:34:53 4. Subteam Reports: Canvas; ARIA Mappings; Media; Bug Triage [from janina]
16:34:54 Laura's Longdesc Reinstation Change Proposal: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/InstateLongdesc
16:34:55 5. Face to Face Agenda Discussion [from janina]
16:34:57 +q
16:34:57 6. Keyboard Access Update http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Jul/0105.html [from janina]
16:34:58 Verbose Descriptor Requirements: http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/verbose_desc_reqs
16:35:00 7. Forms Accessibility [from janina]
16:35:01 8. Issue-30 longdesc--Updates? [from janina]
16:35:02 HTML WG Bug 10853 - HTML5 lacks a verbose description mechanism: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10853
16:35:05 9. be done [from janina]
16:35:05 zakim, move to agendum 8
16:35:05 timeline to last call: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Sep/0074.html
16:35:05 See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Feb/0164.html
16:35:06 agendum 8. "Issue-30 longdesc--Updates?" taken up [from janina]
16:35:59 q+ to say this has been an "ISSUE" since the chairs' decision last year
16:36:03 q?
16:36:49 PC: Sam Ruby has talked to Laura. The problem is the deadline was January, so the chance of re-opening was missed.
16:37:09 ack JF
16:37:11 ack oe
16:37:11 oedipus, you wanted to say this has been an "ISSUE" since the chairs' decision last year
16:37:28 JF: There's a formal objection regarding longdesc. So before we clear last call this needs to be addressed.
16:37:35 +q
16:37:38 q?
16:37:57 MS: Confirming there's a formal objection.
16:38:00 q?
16:38:39 q+ to day don't want to have to file formal objection -- would rather work with the WG on getting the lack of verbose descriptor addressed rather than push off to post-LC
16:38:48 q+ to say don't want to have to file formal objection -- would rather work with the WG on getting the lack of verbose descriptor addressed rather than push off to post-LC
16:39:05 ack JF
16:39:08 ack oe
16:39:08 oedipus, you wanted to day don't want to have to file formal objection -- would rather work with the WG on getting the lack of verbose descriptor addressed rather than push off to
16:39:12 ... post-LC and to say don't want to have to file formal objection -- would rather work with the WG on getting the lack of verbose descriptor addressed rather than push off to
16:39:14 ... post-LC
16:39:26 -Cynthia_Shelly
16:39:41 JF: It's up to the chairs to decide about the procedure. In seeking consensus I think addressing the issue now is easier.
16:39:56 +Cynthia_Shelly
16:40:01 ack oe
16:40:13 GR: We tried to avoid a formal objection. The discussion has been going on, a solution is at hand.
16:40:25 +1 to0 Janina's point
16:40:32 There are already Last Call issues that are on the page that lists all issues:
16:40:33 q?
16:40:33 http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/issue-status.html
16:40:58 +q
16:41:07 JS: In the past when a solution was at hand I understood that time constraints were secondary.
16:41:55 oedipus has joined #html-a11y
16:41:56 q?
16:41:58 JS: It's on the WAI agenda for the next meeting as well.
16:42:01 q?
16:42:08 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/02/17-html-a11y-minutes.html oedipus
16:42:40 it isn't a matter of "principle" it is a matter of a HOLE in the spec that has been repeatedly pointed out and has been the subject of Change Proposals
16:42:51 q+
16:43:31 this decision was draconian to remove longdesc without equivalent or replacement
16:43:40 q?
16:43:52 See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Feb/0052.html
16:44:01 PC: The Chairs have to be fairly principal because of the April/May time table. We will have time constraints soon, so we don't want this to be a precedent. We need to be fairly strict in the future.
16:44:03 we have followed the "lead" of the chairs and staff members in addressing this issue -- it is not like others
16:44:05 q?
16:44:13 q?
16:45:05 ack oe
16:45:24 GR: I disagree because it's not a matter of principal, but it's a hole in the spec. It has been in HTML4 and has been removed. Something has to be done to resolve that.
16:45:54 JS: The problem is a political problem. The issue has not been rejected, it's been postponed.
16:46:04 +q
16:46:25 paul, if you go ahead with last call without LONGDESC you KNOW you are going to get Formal Objections -- why not nip this in the bud by addressing an actual need (articulated by WAI, HTML A11y TF, and EPUB/IDPF)
16:46:44 that's just semantic jive
16:47:00 PC: If Laura or other contributors were to send the material they have today we believe we have enough evidence to re-open the issue. But it would be a post-last call issue.
16:47:12 semantic jive
16:47:20 +q
16:48:16 PC: It's not unusual to draw the attention on sections of the spec in Last Call so that they can be improved.
16:48:58 ack JF
16:49:14 JS: The message being sent by publishing HTML5 without a prior solution for the longdesc issue would be devastating.
16:49:20 timeline to last call: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Sep/0074.html
16:49:21 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Sep/0074.html
16:50:02 JF: The escalation after the deadline has happened in the form of the formal objection.
16:50:23 there is an issue, a bug, and change proposals
16:51:26 paulc, the point is that we have tried in good faith to avoid a formal objection by fixing what is broken (the lack of a verbose description mechanism)
16:51:47 PC: I have discussed this with Sam whether the deadline was met because of the issue being escalated before January 27, and we denied that. Though we haven't spoken with Maciej yet.
16:51:49 we have tried to avoid formal objections on the ADVICE and COUNSEL of the chairs
16:53:11 http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/
16:53:14 W3C Process: http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#WGArchiveMinorityViews
16:53:30 q?
16:54:06 PC: I assume we can address that issue long before Last Call, it could be as early as June.
16:54:18 the earlier the better...
16:54:58 JS: I believe we need to explain the process in the preamble so that we do not alienate accessibility people.
16:55:40 verbose descriptor mechanism also needs to be addressed for EPUB 3.0 in order for it to be compatible with HTML5
16:56:01 JF: There are two formal abjections...
16:56:28 JS: But that doesn't mean they will be addressed by the director before Last Call.
16:56:59 q+ to ask about the "single" chance to change the chairs' decision
16:57:19 qck oe
16:57:24 ack oe
16:57:24 oedipus, you wanted to ask about the "single" chance to change the chairs' decision
16:58:09 JF. We've been announcing this for a while, so it could have been on the radar that there is a proposal in the making. It has been explained in mails that even though the deadline has passed it could be reconsidered.
16:58:34 paulc was the first on the bridge
16:59:56 -Léonie_Watson
17:00:13 -Rich
17:00:14 MikeSmith, you've been the one reminding us of a "single" chance to have chairs' decision reopened -- can you clarify?
17:00:18 PC: In the W3C culture there's no "single chance." The process is if new compelling evidence is put on the table issues can be re-opened or amended anytime. This has happened many times in the past.
17:01:06 q?
17:01:15 MS: I agree with Paul. There's nothing in the process that limits a proposal to one shot.
17:01:28 we DO NOT WANT to have to file a formal objection -- we are trying to work with the WG and the chairs and the editor
17:01:39 MS: Also the director can push it back to the WG.
17:01:54 rrsagent, make minutes
17:01:54 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/02/17-html-a11y-minutes.html kliehm
17:02:38 this was a BAD decision, taken too hastily
17:02:55 +q
17:03:04 MS: I support whatever the chairs decide because I trust them to make decisions in good faith. We need to keep a positive and constructive dialog.
17:05:29 JF: It's frustrating to find the deadline of January 27 blocking a solution at this time because it hasn't been communicated clearly.
17:05:54 we've been trying to "advance" this issue under the guidance of the chairs and facilitators -- the decision made by the chairs was faulty because it removed something added to HTML4 SPECIFICALLY to address a need without recognizing that a hole was thereby created in HTML that must be fixed by an equivalent or superior mechanism
17:06:17 that is a bad decision, regardless of one's opinion of "policy"
17:07:05 MS: When the chairs choose to allow issues to be re-opened and re-escalated to the group it's their decision. The chairs will continue to be under pressure to meet the Last Call deadline, so we need to respect the decision.
17:08:05 GR: This is different because longdesc has been added to HTML4 by request of the director and has been arbitrarily removed by the editor.
17:08:51 MS: The technical issue is out of question, it's a procedural question.
17:09:34 q+
17:09:47 ack JF
17:10:14 JF: The decision is going to anger many people and I'd preferred to draw it back.
17:10:19 we dont want to wait 2 years -- we've already waited too long to address these issues and their importance
17:11:18 JS: Do not over-estimate the power of a formal objection. It doesn't mean that the issue will be addressed soon, it could be in two years. We're not talking about going to CR yet.
17:11:20 plus 1 to JF
17:12:05 In my personal opinion it won't be the only Last Call anyway.
17:12:14 closed with EXTREME prejudice
17:12:22 Agree, I expect as 2 Last Calls
17:12:34 JF: [repeating the above]
17:12:41 Agree, I expect at least 2 Last Calls
17:13:40 HTML5 is being implemented by fiat -- that is the source of urgency
17:13:48 JS: If we rely on a formal objection, why do we discuss about it today?
17:14:31 JS: Going to CR is far in the future.
17:15:47 JF: The longdesc issue was raised in 2008. The chairs told us the issue could be re-opened. A lot of work and effort has been going into it. Now we're being told it's too late. That's disappointing.
17:15:52 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Aug/att-0112/issue-30-decision.html
17:16:07 q?
17:16:10 ack paulc
17:17:32 Verbose Descriptor Requirements: http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/verbose_desc_reqs
17:17:35 Laura's Longdesc Reinstation Change Proposal: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/InstateLongdesc
17:17:39 HTML WG Bug 10853 - HTML5 lacks a verbose description mechanism: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10853
17:18:35