HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

21 Apr 2011


See also: IRC log


Eric_Carlson, Gregory_Rosmaita, John_Foliot, Judy, Michael_Cooper, Paul_Cotton, Rich_Schwerdtfeger, Sam, Steve_Faulkner, Cynthia_Shelly
Janina_Sajka, Laura_Carlson, Silvia_Pfieffer, Marco_Ranon


<MikeSmith> trackbot, start meeting

<trackbot> Date: 21 April 2011

<MikeSmith> Zakim, who's on the phone?

<MikeSmith> Zakim, who's on the phone?

MS: change proposal deadline tomorrow 22 April 2011

<Leonie_Watson> scribe: Leonie_Watson

<paulc> Deadlines are always midnight Boston time on the date specified by the Chairs.

Media sub team issue 152 multitrack

<oedipus> agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Apr/0234.html

<oedipus> controller proposal from Media subgroup: http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_Multitrack_Change_Proposals_Summary#Proposal_4:_Controller_proposal

JF: We had a productive meeting where there were a half dozen issues that were not in accordance with the WG spec.

<paulc> it is NOT paulc since I am on another call

<paulc> I am here so far only on Zakim

JF: We have in the wiki four different change proposals. The agreement was that we would withdraw all but the fourth, which lines up with Ian's proposal.
... Sylvia Pfeiffer has drafted up a final version of the change proposal from the media sub team.

<oedipus> proposed TF letter on issue-152: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Apr/0218.html

JF: There is some discussion about process, there are a couple of different ways forward including submitting bug reports against those issues or waiting another week.
... If we file this change proposal, that is the consencus way forward IMHO.
... We may not have unanimity, but I would say there is a majority concensus.
... Two 90min calls a week from everyone in the sub team is a real comittment to getting it right.

MS: We don't have logistics in bugzilla for filing bugs against a change proposal. Doesn't mean it can't be done, but there would need to be some discussion.

<richardschwerdtfe> good morning

JF: The chairs gave us time to come up with a change proposal, we could treat that as a concensus resolution and that would be fine. Otherwise it's a change proposal against the spec and the next step would be to issue a straw poll and take that route.

MS: It sounds like that's moved to where it needs to be for the deadline tomorrow.
... Who will actually be submitting the change propsal?

JF: Sylvia is doing that, and if not I'm happy to take it on.

<paulc> Ian's response: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Apr/0224.html

PC: I haven't seen anyone mention Ian's response - who suggested that all four proposals be withdrawn. Can someone elucidate me?

JB: We were looking at this in real time during the meeting, John also mentioned the other traffic that's been going on around this. Otherwise, we don't have an instant response on this one.

JF: The difference betwen what Ian's written and what the media sub team think is half the sticking points we're dealing with. We wouldn't want to go forward with the four/five things missing that we think are important.

<oedipus> silvia's proposed TF letter on issue-152: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Apr/0218.html

<oedipus> hixie's response to silvia on proposed letter for issue-152: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Apr/0224.html

JF: Ian has been making changes throughout this process, when we started to look at the multitrack issue he didn't have anything in place. Now media controllers is the way he is moving forward. He's writing spec which is evolving, where as we have to work in more of a shadow/the wiki.

JB: Is there a different approach you'd propose Paul?

<oedipus> no matter what, this conversation should be happening in W3C fora not just in WHATWG space

JF: I would rather Ian's proposal be classed as 4b and ours 4a.

JB: So what might be a preferable approach for this?

PC: Earlier someone said if we came down to having only one change proposal, the chairs would do a survey. I'm not worried where the proposal comes from. If there is just one, it's unlikely that the chairs would do a survey.

JF: It boils down to this. We had multiple change proposals, reduced to one. If Ian is prepared to roll that into one proposal...

PC: Sorry to interupt. It's possible someone else could object to the proposal, not just the chars. It's not a done deal because it comes from a sub team.

<richardschwerdtfe> BRB

<rubys> It would be easiest if Sylvia/JF were to write a CP; if Ian adopts that, we can call for consensus; otherwise we can do a survey. I can help Sylvia and/or JF offline.

JB: The conversation shouldn't be characterised in this way. Given that this group has been working hard on this issue, we would prefer you survey our change proposal. I understand it gets complicated, but if you have a choice of which proposals to survey, a lot of people would appreciate it being the sub team proposal.

<JF> +q

PC: If Ian has spec text not reflected in his original change proposal, asking him to change his change proposal is asking him to reapply the work he's done in the WATWG spec back again.PC: I think I undersMC:

<richardschwerdtfe> back

SR: It would be easiest if Sylvia/John could send in the change proposal, or we could do a survey. I'd be happy to help offline.

JF: We're probably within 10% of each other I think. If Ian accepts the proposal from the sub team, then we would be aligned and the chairs could adopt this and we could all move forward. Otherwise there will be two change proposals with minimal differences.

SR: To make it more simple, submit it as a change proposal. If Ian accepts it we call for consensus, if not we'll call a survey.

JB: +1 to SR.

Issue 131 carat location

<oedipus> canvas updates in response to chairs request for clarification on issue 131: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-canvas-api/2011AprJun/att-0017/HTML_Canvas_2DContext20110415.html

<rubys> s/we're good/we call for consensus/

RS: All aspects of the change proposal were accepted, but there were a couple of points that were missed in relation to 508 that I responded to.
... I responded to a request from SR yesterday, he may have responded but I haven't seen yet.

SR: We're waiting for an action from the chairs, and I haven't responded yet.

Status report text sub team

<MikeSmith> http://www.w3.org/2011/04/18-text-minutes.html

JB: Text meets on Monday EST 11am. We started with alt text, longdesc and poster and will likely add at least two/three more issues based on rejections.

<MikeSmith> note that IRC channel for the Text Alternatives subteam calls i #text

JB: We spent the first meeting dicussing organisation, commonalities and misunderstandings that appear to crop up. We looked at differences of perspective on certain topics, such as the potential for ARIA to make up for AT gaps.

Steve Faulkner Issue Follow-Up

SF: The two issues I was responding to were title being conforming without alt on images, and I've posted a number of emails about this.
... I've emailed with points of clarification, and also to ask browser vendors to give their input. I've had one response from Mozilla.

<oedipus> that damn hidden metadata!

JB: SF asked for this issue to be brought into the sub group and I think it will be welcomed there.

RS: Would tht be considered new information we need to give to the chairs?

<rubys> paulc: +1

<JF> +q

PC: Why wasn't this issue mentioned originally?PC: Wh

<rubys> related: this is excellent: http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/2010/11/using-the-html-title-attribute/

JB: There are many types of evidence and it's not always possible to include it all. Now we know one of the gaps in the infomration.

<oedipus> the @title insufficiency has been extensively discussed in the WAI and wider a11y-community -- we can only give you info, can't force you to read it

PC: There seems to be a strong misunderstanding. The chairs only look at the evidence within the survey. We don't look outside of that.

PC; When I asked why this information wasn't included, I got a reasonable answer. The reason I asked was because if you think the chairs are supposed to take evidence that was never on the table, we don't do that.

<oedipus> it is NOT "magic evidence"

JB: I'm not assuming that the chairs have magic knowledge, nor that the people responding on behalf of specific a11y needs have any magic understanding either. If there is some tolerance for understanding on both sides... We may not be able to guess everything you need to understand fully.

<paulc> For the record, the Chairs evaluate the information provided in the survey. We do not consider material that is NOT provided in the survey. If we did the process would be completely arbitrary.

<oedipus> paulc, are you saying that only surveys carry weight with the chairs? rejection of comments on survey strike me as EXTREMELY arbitrary

JF: The reason the TF was created was to bring together domain experts. We may not be aware of what Paul calls magic evidence, but we are experts in the subject matter and when we speak with one voice, if the expertise is ddiscounted... what are we doing?
... WYou don't want us to waste your time, we don't want our time wasted. We bring our knowledge to the table, and when it comes to accessibility our expertise isn't accepted in the way it is for other areas of expertise/knowledge.

<paulc> We do not ask for a list of ALL things that break. We ask for evidence of which can be examples of breakage. We are not asking for ALL examples.

<MikeSmith> ack [Microsoft]

<paulc> And ALL the FOs are NOT about A11Y issues.

CS: Does this piece cover the meta generator as conforming?

<rubys> http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/formal-objection-status.html

<JF> 60% of the FO's are accessibility related

<rubys> http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/new-information-status.html

<JF> 3 of 5

SF: No, both my objections were reactions to things that made my brain fry. I'm not adverse to finding other routes to a slution.

<paulc> JF said ALL and that is simply NOT true.

<JF> and I am looking to file an FO against the generator issue

CS: It seems like a bigger issue to me.

<paulc> Thank you for the links, Sam.

<Zakim> oedipus, you wanted to ask paulc what do the chairs do between the surveys, and why are most survey comments summarily rejected

GJR: What do the editors do between the surveys? How can you say you only concentrate on the surveys when it seems that the majority of survey comments are rejected?

JB: I'm hoping we can use the sub group consutructively.

<rubys> I suggest that people look at this decision as a good example: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Mar/0245.html

PC: I believe we should help people understand the working group decisions that are made. It might be helpful to take a couple of examples and explain them in more detail to a few members.

<oedipus> this is about accessibility, NOT about polling, popularity, or theory

PC: We try to find the least amount of dissent. In many cases the reasons why our positions are taken to be weaker, is that there is no evidence given

<oedipus> accessibility is non-negotiable -- it is a mandate from the director (see foundational documents for WAI)

<rubys> On issue-130, Rich didn't simply say "because I know what I am talking about", but said "because it breaks gmail, facebook, yahoo mail, numerous IBM applications"

<paulc> Gregory: I am travelling this week in UK but would be willing to get on the phone with you and other next week when I land back in the NA.

JB: One thing I was hoping to do in the sub group is draft a clarification reply, carefully consutructed. I'm wondering if the chairs might considr having the session focused on going through our draft? It might be a more positive discussion.

<oedipus> paulc, i would appreciate that -- my eddress is oedipus@hicom.net

<rubys> +1 to judy

<Zakim> oedipus, you wanted to ask if common sense and logic have any place in the HTML WG process? sounds like it is survey-driven, and that cookie-cutter approach doesn't work -- these

<JF> +q

PC: I don't think our problem is the issues at hand, but I think we have a severe problem with some people's willingness to respond to a survey. Judy mentioned solving 5 problems, I think it's more like solving 100 problems. Judy and I are on the same page, she's looking at it tactically for current issues, I'm looking at it strategically to support better survey participation in the future.

JF: I think what we have here is a culture clash. On one hand technical/mechanical engineers and on the other accessibility/conceptual people. I don't have an easy answer, but it seems to me that if things appear to be unclear/ if our responses are too squishy, it would be good to try and make it better.

RS: I think we need to try and focus on the details more. Let's just go work together and get it fixed.

<paulc> +1 to what Richard said about the A11Y participants needed to give better evidence in future surveys

JB: I appreciate Paul offering to go through things with us, and yes I am looking at things tactically at the moment.

<oedipus> how can one provide evidence when one can only comment upon the survey?

<paulc> 4 bank holidays in 9 days in the UK!!

<MikeSmith> Steve will scribe next-next week

<inserted> scribenick: oedipus

MS: can SF scribe the week after next?

<MikeSmith> adjourned

SF: sure


Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.135 (CVS log)
$Date: 2011/04/21 16:27:20 $

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/PC: Sorry to interupt. It's possible someone else could object to the proposal, not just the chars. It's not a done deal because it comes from a sub team.PC: Sorry to interupt. It's possible som/PC: Sorry to interupt. It's possible someone else could object to the proposal, not just the chars. It's not a done deal because it comes from a sub team./
FAILED: s/we're  good/we call for consensus/
Succeeded: s/I'm not assuming that/I'm not assuming that the chairs have magic knowledge/
Succeeded: s/MS: I think/RS: I think/
Succeeded: s/we're good/we call for consensus/
Succeeded: i/MS: can SF scribe/scribenick: oedipus
Found Scribe: Leonie_Watson
Inferring ScribeNick: Leonie_Watson
Found ScribeNick: oedipus
ScribeNicks: oedipus, Leonie_Watson
Default Present: [IPcaller], Sam, Gregory_Rosmaita, Judy, John_Foliot, Eric_Carlson, Steve_Faulkner, Paul_Cotton, Rich_Schwerdtfeger, Michael_Cooper
Present: Eric_Carlson Gregory_Rosmaita John_Foliot Judy Michael_Cooper Paul_Cotton Rich_Schwerdtfeger Sam Steve_Faulkner Cynthia_Shelly
Regrets: Janina_Sajka Laura_Carlson Silvia_Pfieffer Marco_Ranon
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Apr/0234.html
Found Date: 21 Apr 2011
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2011/04/21-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]