See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 14 April 2011
<richardschwerdtfe> I am dialed in but here nobody
<janina> Meeting: HTML-A11Y telecon
<janina> Chair: Janina_Sajka
<janina> agenda: this
<scribe> scribe: Gregory_Rosmaita
<scribe> scribenick: oedipus
JS: began discussion last week --
want to clarify what meant by text descriptions -- @summary,
@longdesc, @poster, @alt, Figure/Figcaption, "discoverable
metadata"
... subteam will make very specific recommendations on each
topic
... aim is to not monopolize the TF call time -- been
successful assigning areas of concern to TF for action
<Joshue> I am on another call at the moment but will track IRC.
JS: HTML5 going into last call --
need to ensure covers a11y as well as possible, and next
steps
... appropriate name? time? scope?
JF: talking about "discoverable metadata" -- data or metadata about an element that is given to the user on request -- @longdesc poster child for this -- vaule of longdesc not given until user requests
goes for @describedby as well as @longdesc -- discoverable
JF: like term "discoverable metadata"
plus 1
JS: like to not do that for a
particular reason -- no one opposes concept of discoverable
metadata -- hard to see how is a11y issue per se
... make discoverable, end of story -- doesn't need to be
identified only as an a11y issue -- concerned may be red
herring to pull us off topic -- agree that is what we are
talking about -- metadata and data that is universally
discoverable
MC: name suggestions drawn from WCAG -- "text alternatives" (WCAG req) -- if more generic, "fallback content" (broader, but about alternatives), if broader, "programmatically determined accessible content"
JB: ditto JS' concerns about
"discoverable metadata" -- interested in MC's suggestions
... maybe just go with text alternates
GJR: not "fallback content" -- text equivalents, not fallback -- fallback for image is icon denoting image should be here
<JF> +1
<mranon> +1
<JF> +q
GJR: don't object to text alternatives
JF: @summary for TABLE -- no
image, so no fallback -- need to keep as broad as
possible
... subteam discussed last week was related to chairs' decision
on @summary for TABLE -- this is "discoverable metadata" --
provided by author to aid those who need additional aid
<Joshue> +q to ask if Hixies latest outburst on how little he thinks of W3C process calls into question some of the decisions make regarding a11y?
<Joshue> -q
JF: push-and-pull -- if basic
HTML pushed from client to renderers -- if need more info, can
pull it using mechanisms provided (@summary @longdesc) fits
larger model -- additinoal content provided by authors for a
wide variety of users, not just screen reader users
... what is scope/goal of subteam?
JS: not to make discoverable, but to ensure that the necessary mechanisms needed exist
JB: suggested sub-group on small
cluster of topics because: 1) pattern of rejection of a11y
feature retention proposals; 2) HTML5 moving target needs to
move along with a11y support intact as w3c document; 3) lot of
work, need unified stable proposals to take advantage of normal
process for redress of a feature bing depreceated/removed
without equal or superior mechanism
... last week question was on consensus on formal
objection
... some thought might be futile, some thought not highest
priority, some thought could be handled by expanding ARIA's
scope
... perhaps there is an objection the group would want to
present --
... expedited appeal -- wouldn't be convenient for chairs, may
not be smothest way to go but not yet having that
conversation
... subgroup setting could be helpful to make process options
available and timeframes
<JF> +q
JB: reaffirm previous technical
consensus or clarifying position to restore a11y support
... idea--move quickly, gather ideas, process
constructively
JOC: Hixies latest outburst on how little he thinks of W3C process calls into question some of the decisions make regarding a11y?
JF: mentioned technical barriers/issues around reinstation of a11y features -- there are NO technical issues -- lack of support in GUI environment
JB: don't believe there are
technical barriers to a11y -- there are misconceptions though
that need to be dispelled point-by-point
... fielded many complaints about chairs' decisions on a11y --
need to avail ourselves of process provided by chairs
JF: formal objection -- is goal to work towards very robust FO that addresses all of these issues?
JB: don't want to presupose
groups' consensus
... did very quick poll last week -- TF divided -- would like
to probe that
... wonder why not more FOs being generated from TF
... restore4a11y proposal by GJR could be useful form of
objection to have on table -- have to look carefully at how
process is expected to happen at FO stage to see if something
useful there
GJR: change proposal, not FO
CS: couple of issues: 1) why no FO? discussions with HTML WG chairs, said FOs are for post-LC processing
JB: that's not the whole picture
CS: 2) decisions just came down in last couple of weeks --
<JF> +q
CS: 3) seems as if there is a
whole category of things being rejected -- nexus "extra work
for developers" and "hidden metadata" -- our approach is to
push for native semantics, and to look at ARIA as extra work
added on for devs/authors
... A11y API stuff or custom engineering best handled with
cross-cutting technology such as ARIA
... devs already implementing HTML5 -- for some, can plug holes
perhaps with ARIA
JB: hope CS signs up for subgroup
CS: as long as meetings don't start at 7am PT
JB: LauraC volunteered via
email
... timing issue with regard FO --
... timing distinction -- FOs not normally taken up until CR
stage, but an important exception -- any FO can be appealed to
director, can be appeal for expedited review -- can be
considered nearly immediately --
... not convenient or welcome, but if need to address now, then
need to address now
... surprised at what i am hearing
JS: not on table at time of @longdesc conversation
JB: hope to attend TF meetings
regularly to keep up on strategy and getting native
accessibility in addition to what is added via ARIA
... question of timing: deprecation, rather than removal, then
take time to find how to do in truly corss-disability way
... can flesh out these questions in subgroup -- need to
coalesce around responses that keep a11y in W3C's flagship
publication
JF: personally, have problem saying: "here is aria stuff for people using AT" -- that is wrong and wrong-headed -- real reservations saying "catch the rest with ARIA"
SF: 1 point in regards what judy said about deprecate not remove -- that would involve reintroducing concept of deprecated
<Joshue> +1 to GJR, ARIA shouldn't be just about users of AT and then HTML 5 for everyone else, I think this kind of fork is an unfortunate by product of W3C process and HTML 5 politics.
JS: have "deprecated but conforming"
plus 1 to Joshue's IRC comments
SF: this terminology is not part of HTML5
CS: obsolete but conforming is a
strange term but makes sense
... obsolete versus obsolete but conforming
... native semantics: there are diff ways to think about what
native semantics mean -- i mean primarily things that are part
of what devs are doing anyway -- name from text on button--
additional stuff devs have to add
... slightly diff way of drawing the line
RS: ARIA not a bridging
technology -- things like standard widgets have to be made
fully interoperable with AT without addding ARIA -- for things
such as @summary @title -- ARIA meant to be cross-cutting tech
to support AT -- way to apply a11y semantics for SVG and CANVAS
and HTML
... canvas used to be separate from HTML
... there are advantages to having declarative API consistent
across elements that can be controlled by AT -- not a bridging
tech, but an a11y API feature that is declariative
... 80% less work to do same thing on desktop apps
JS: anyone can't live with name "text alternatives" for subteam to keep in sync with WCAG
JB: could approve general aim of
subgroup, put out provisional title, figure out membership, and
get started
... subgroup can figure out naming issue
JS: time for meeting?
<richardschwerdtfe> I wish that were true John
JB: possible to have meeting at us eastern 11:30 am to 1 pm
<richardschwerdtfe> ... personal experiences
JB: Laura will be able to participate to a larger degree at that time
JS: works for me
<Joshue> +q is there going to be a text @alt group?
<Joshue> -q
CS: not on regular basis
GJR: immediately follows ARIA caucus
RS: could do most of time
<JF> While not a great morning person, I can work with Monday 11:30 AM Eastern
SF: could make part of it
GJR: can do entire meeting
JF: early, but can attend
JB: like this to be a provisional time and date -- Monday, April 17 at 11:30 AM Boston time for 90 minutes
<Joshue> I can try also, depending on impending child.
MR: for me not good time -- perhaps can get colleague to join, but she isn't part of TF
JB: JS, MC and MS can talk to you about getting person plugged in
MR: thanks will follow up
MC: want to be involved but don't need another meeting
JB: is time ok?
MC: yes
JB: any other objections?
<JF> +1 to having Judy 's arm twisted <grin>
proposed RESOLUTION: first "text alternatives" subgroup meeting will be held on 17 April 2011 at 11:30 am Boston time for 90 minutes under Judy's aegis
proposed RESOLUTION: first "text alternatives" subgroup meeting will be held on Monday, 18 April 2011 at 11:30 am Boston time for 90 minutes under Judy's aegis
JB: do intend to try to make sure
process options are clear
... intend to ensure have good consensus-based discussion with
clear understanding of all of the process issues
proposed RESOLUTION: first "text alternatives" subgroup meeting will be held on Monday, 18 April 2011 at 11:30 am Boston time for 90 minutes under Judy's aegis
<JF> +1 to that resolution
RESOLUTION: first "text alternatives" subgroup meeting will be held on Monday, 18 April 2011 at 11:30 am Boston time for 90 minutes under Judy's aegis
RS: use what channel?
JB & JS: will announce the channel and other meeting info
<richardschwerdtfe> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0394.html
RS: didn't seem as if the chairs
didn't really process all of my comments
... detailed problems that chairs overlook in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0394.html
... custom FocusRing can cause function to drop out -- author
can manually draw focus ring, but that won't be a call to drive
the focus ring after it ocurs
... highlighted in list of bugs
... x,y coordinate provided with intention to drive magnifier
as caret moves, but currently tied to focus ring drawing --
functions don't match -- chairs reviewed -- we provided info on
how to drive magnifier
... why shouldn't author be able to override focus ring setting
user has
... details provided in cited email
... not considered: we met with magnifier devs to solve the
problems for magnification -- chairs didn't recognize
this
... put proposal in -- if continues to be a problem will
probably do formal objection -- want to give chairs chance to
re-examine data
... hixie asked what to do - my response is don't do anything
-- completely broken as-is
JS: decision takes out ability to support magnifiers -- you are asking them to reconsider?
RS: chairs' decision was leave
function as is, which breaks magnification
... increases burden on author and still breaks
magnification
... on windows, doing direct draw -- need function to capture
graphics calls to display blinking cursor
... bug need to address: baseline for test metrics -- multiple
baselines in canvas spec == hjave to specify which baseline
JS: task force might want to be signatory of Richs' FO
GJR: sees a pattern of rejection
JB: RS clarification useful
... point is to get all info into 1 FO
JS: volunteer to scribe next
week?
... i and marco won't be on call next week, MikeSmith will
chair next week's TF meeting
s/TOPIC: Timing/TOPIC: Text Alternatives Subgroup Timeline & Scope/
i/TOPIC: Text ALternatives Subgroup Timeline and Scope Discussion/JB: LauraC/
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/not taken up/not normally taken up/ Succeeded: s/unfortunatel/unfortunate/ Succeeded: s/JS: RS/JB: RS/ Succeeded: i/LauraC volunteered via email/Topic: Timing FAILED: s/TOPIC: Timing/TOPIC: Text Alternatives Subgroup Timeline & Scope/ FAILED: i/TOPIC: Text ALternatives Subgroup Timeline and Scope Discussion/JB: LauraC Succeeded: i/JB: LauraC/TOPIC: Text ALternatives Subgroup Timeline and Scope Discussion Succeeded: s/no// Succeeded: s/I was just adding some sub-topics// Succeeded: s/yeah// Succeeded: s/oedipus: OK, but please feel free to add any more where it seems like they might be needed// Succeeded: s/the discussion covered quite a few topics// Succeeded: i/JB: LauraC volunteered via email/TOPIC: Text Alternatives Subgroup Timeline and Scope Discussion Found Scribe: Gregory_Rosmaita Found ScribeNick: oedipus Default Present: Rich, +1.650.468.aaaa, Gregory_Rosmaita, janina, mranon, MikeSmith, Michael_Cooper, Judy, Steve_Faulkner, Eric_Carlson, John_Foliot Present: Eric_Carlson Gregory_Rosmaita John_Foliot Judy Michael_Cooper MikeSmith Rich Steve_Faulkner janina mranon Regrets: Laura_Carlson Silvia_Pfieffer Léonie_Watson Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Apr/0111.html Found Date: 14 Apr 2011 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2011/04/14-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]