See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 17 February 2011
<janina> Meeting: HTML-A11Y telecon
<janina> Chair: Janina_Sajka
<janina> agenda: this
<scribe> scribe: Martin_Kliehm
<scribe> scribenick: kliehm
MC: Action-22 Testing sub-team is moving forward in particular in the ARIA field
<oedipus> issue-134?
<trackbot> ISSUE-134 does not exist
<oedipus> GJR: keep action open -- will complete today and alert list
<MichaelC> action-101 due 3 March
<trackbot> ACTION-101 - email ARIA Caucus to request a "modal" attribute for ARIA due date now 3 March
<janina> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11892
<oedipus> action-104?
<trackbot> 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
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/104
RS/JS: Would inclusion of ARIA in HTML spec inhibit the extensibility of the ARIA spec?
RS: I think they should be normative.
<JF> .
<oedipus> 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
<Zakim> 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
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.
<JF> +1 to oedipus
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.
MS: That would be the ideal
solution, the question is whether it's possible.
... There's a formal objection that we need to have the ARIA
attributes defined, so there's a limit what you can
decouple.
<oedipus> personally, i would MUCH rather have the annotations for a11y content section removed and repopulated throughout the spec where individual features are introduced/defined
<oedipus> agree about @role -- definitely MUST be native to HTML5
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.
... ARIA supports the accessibility APIs, but doesn't have any
impact on the standard function. So it's separate.
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 specs would be able to expand.
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.
... Anything else like custom strings is not an issue because
you could just define name-value pairs.
<MikeSmith> http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/elements.html#global-attributes
<MikeSmith> http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/content-models.html#annotations-for-assistive-technology-products-aria
<oedipus> http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/elements.html#global-attributes
<MikeSmith> "Authors may use the ARIA role and aria-* attributes on HTML elements"
<MikeSmith> "The following attributes are common to and may be specified on all HTML elements (even those not defined in this specification):"
MS: If you take Ian's question in the bug report it asks where the attributes should be defined.
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.
MS: I understand what Ian is asking, I'll respond.
<oedipus> 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?
<oedipus> Laura's Longdesc Reinstation Change Proposal: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/InstateLongdesc
<JF> +q
<oedipus> Verbose Descriptor Requirements: http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/verbose_desc_reqs
<oedipus> HTML WG Bug 10853 - HTML5 lacks a verbose description mechanism: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10853
<oedipus> timeline to last call: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Sep/0074.html
<paulc> See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Feb/0164.html
PC: Sam Ruby has talked to Laura. The problem is the deadline was January, so the chance of re-opening was missed.
<Zakim> oedipus, you wanted to say this has been an "ISSUE" since the chairs' decision last year
JF: There's a formal objection regarding longdesc. So before we clear last call this needs to be addressed.
<JF> +q
MS: Confirming there's a formal objection.
<Zakim> 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
JF: It's up to the chairs to decide about the procedure. In seeking consensus I think addressing the issue now is easier.
GR: We tried to avoid a formal objection. The discussion has been going on, a solution is at hand.
<JF> +1 to0 Janina's point
<paulc> There are already Last Call issues that are on the page that lists all issues:
<paulc> http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/issue-status.html
<JF> +q
JS: In the past when a solution
was at hand I understood that time constraints were
secondary.
... It's on the WAI agenda for the next meeting as well.
<oedipus> 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
<oedipus> this decision was draconian to remove longdesc without equivalent or replacement
<paulc> See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Feb/0052.html
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.
<oedipus> we have followed the "lead" of the chairs and staff members in addressing this issue -- it is not like others
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.
JS: The problem is a political problem. The issue has not been rejected, it's been postponed.
<JF> +q
<oedipus> 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)
<oedipus> that's just semantic jive
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.
<oedipus> semantic jive
<JF> +q
PC: It's not unusual to draw the attention on sections of the spec in Last Call so that they can be improved.
JS: The message being sent by publishing HTML5 without a prior solution for the longdesc issue would be devastating.
<oedipus> timeline to last call: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Sep/0074.html
<JF> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Sep/0074.html
JF: The escalation after the deadline has happened in the form of the formal objection.
<oedipus> there is an issue, a bug, and change proposals
<oedipus> 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)
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.
<oedipus> we have tried to avoid formal objections on the ADVICE and COUNSEL of the chairs
<oedipus> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/
<JF> W3C Process: http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#WGArchiveMinorityViews
PC: I assume we can address that issue long before Last Call, it could be as early as June.
<oedipus> the earlier the better...
JS: I believe we need to explain the process in the preamble so that we do not alienate accessibility people.
<oedipus> verbose descriptor mechanism also needs to be addressed for EPUB 3.0 in order for it to be compatible with HTML5
JF: There are two formal abjections...
JS: But that doesn't mean they will be addressed by the director before Last Call.
<oedipus> qck oe
<Zakim> oedipus, you wanted to ask about the "single" chance to change the chairs' decision
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.
<oedipus> paulc was the first on the bridge
<oedipus> MikeSmith, you've been the one reminding us of a "single" chance to have chairs' decision reopened -- can you clarify?
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.
MS: I agree with Paul. There's nothing in the process that limits a proposal to one shot.
<oedipus> 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
MS: Also the director can push it back to the WG.
<oedipus> this was a BAD decision, taken too hastily
<JF> +q
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.
JF: It's frustrating to find the deadline of January 27 blocking a solution at this time because it hasn't been communicated clearly.
<oedipus> 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
<oedipus> that is a bad decision, regardless of one's opinion of "policy"
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.
GR: This is different because longdesc has been added to HTML4 by request of the director and has been arbitrarily removed by the editor.
MS: The technical issue is out of question, it's a procedural question.
JF: The decision is going to anger many people and I'd preferred to draw it back.
<oedipus> we dont want to wait 2 years -- we've already waited too long to address these issues and their importance
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.
<oedipus> plus 1 to JF
In my personal opinion it won't be the only Last Call anyway.
<oedipus> closed with EXTREME prejudice
<paulc> Agree, I expect as 2 Last Calls
JF: [repeating the above]
<paulc> Agree, I expect at least 2 Last Calls
<oedipus> HTML5 is being implemented by fiat -- that is the source of urgency
JS: If we rely on a formal
objection, why do we discuss about it today?
... Going to CR is far in the future.
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.
<oedipus> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Aug/att-0112/issue-30-decision.html
<oedipus> Verbose Descriptor Requirements: http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/verbose_desc_reqs
<oedipus> Laura's Longdesc Reinstation Change Proposal: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/InstateLongdesc
<oedipus> HTML WG Bug 10853 - HTML5 lacks a verbose description mechanism: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10853
PC: The chairs didn't say when the issue would be re-opened. It will be addressed. I admit the January date could have been communicated better. I understand your frustration. When we are going to re-open the issue we still want the Accessibility TF to spend their resources on the other, pre-Last Call issues.
JS: The problem is how it will be interpreted in the accessibility community. I don't think that it's good to postpone the issue, so I would like to emphasize the requirement to communicate the basis for the decision clearly.
<Zakim> oedipus, you wanted to ask if we can talk a bit about ISSUE-122 before we part?
<oedipus> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Feb/0163.html
<oedipus> At the HTML WG's TPAC 2010 Face2Face meeting, agreement was reached that the first two paragraphs of the definition of img should be:
<oedipus> sentence 1: An img element represents an image.
<oedipus> sentence 2: The image given by the src attribute is the embedded content; the value of the alt attribute provides equivalent content for those who cannot process images or who have image loading disabled.
GR. There are two issues. At TPAC we decided to start with the smaller issue, changing the wording above.
<JF> "We stated that the issue can be reopened if one or more of these conditions are met."
<JF> Sam Ruby - Jan 6, 2001
PC: If there are more concerns I'm open to discuss longdesc in personal mail.
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/native to HTML4/native to HTML5/ Succeeded: s/sopecs/specs/ Found Scribe: Martin_Kliehm Found ScribeNick: kliehm Default Present: Gregory_Rosmaita, John_Foliot, paulc, kliehm, Rich, Michael_Cooper, Janina_Sajka, MikeSmith, +44.117.929.aaaa, Cynthia_Shelly, Léonie_Watson, Mike Present: Cynthia_Shelly Gregory_Rosmaita Janina_Sajka John_Foliot Léonie_Watson Michael_Cooper Mike_Smith Rich_Schwerdtfeger Martin_Kliehm Paul_Cotton Regrets: Marco_Ranon Laura_Carlson Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Feb/0154.html Found Date: 17 Feb 2011 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2011/02/17-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]