See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 28 April 2011
<janina> Meeting: HTML-A11Y telecon
<janina> agenda: this
<scribe> scribe: Martin_Kliehm
<scribe> scribenick: kliehm
<trackbot> ISSUE-152 does not exist
JF: Working on ISSUE 152 (http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/152)
<trackbot> ISSUE-152 does not exist
<JF> Minutes from yesterday's media sub-team call: http://www.w3.org/2011/04/27-html-a11y-minutes.html
JS: The chain of emails is confusing, working on multitrack with a change proposal. Most probably we'll be in time for Last Call.
<oedipus> media subteam actions in tracker: http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/products/2
<oedipus> all issues and all actions for media subgroup tracker: http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/products/2/all
JS: There are all kinds of alternative media (text, sign language etc.). Several standards organizations expect the W3C to provide a canonical list for these formats.
<oedipus> details on product Text (all issues and actions for text subgroup) http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/products/5/all
<oedipus> action items for Text Alternatives subgroup: http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/products/5
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - items
<richardschwerdtfe> I have to drop off in 20 minutes
JB: The text alternative sub-team met last Monday. Spent most of the meeting talking about @alt validation. Rich and I provided an example, had a good discussion on that. In result several sub-questions got clearer.
JB: People are drafting proposals
for these sub-questions. We'll discuss them next Monday.
... Working on a clarification mail; which would morph into a Formal Objection, though would be nice to be able to avoid that. Gregory working on @summary, others on other topics. The WAI CG has taken up the question in which WG @alt validation lives.
JF: Have been working on a meta-generator proposal, half way there.
<oedipus> text alternatives call monday at 1530h UTC in channel #text, zakim bridge for 90 minutes
JB: Would be good to achieve consensus among accessibility community before passing the results to the chairs.
Canvas Sub-Team report:
<oedipus> RichS on Bug 11239 and hixie's latest spec patch http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-canvas-api/2011AprJun/0024.html
<oedipus> bug 11239 "Canvas support accessible caret tracking independent of Focus Ring tracking" http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11239
RS: Submitted a proposal to the chairs. Ian Hickson took many editorial freedoms, changed steps, added methods. Going through these changes takes a lot of time. My concern is: the editor apparently thinks he can edit the proposal without former consensus. There are so many technical inconsistencies, also accessibility flaws where he ignores expert knowledge like we've seen in the past.
JB: One of the aspects of the
HTML WG process is commit, then review. It's an exception in
the W3C process. This seems to be causing ongoing problems and
cycles of additional work.
... Rich, you are noting some technical errors, is that in the editors' work or the chairs' work?
RS: Editors work.
... When the editor introduces his own body of work without consensus on the group it slows down the work in other activities within the Task Force and other WGs, for example SVG.
JS: Communication often requires teleconferences, email and IRC are often insufficient. On the good side the media sub-group is an example where accessibility experts and browser engineers are working very well together.
GR: In a side note, role="presentation" on the body element is currently valid--SteveF has filed a bug to limit use of role="presentation"
JB: Macej put a huge amount of thoughtful work into reviewing the comments on @alt, @figcaption was interesting because there were some new questions to explore.. The form of communication should be dialog rather than hierarchical decisions. We should watch the replies on the surveys closely.
<oedipus> often such things HAVE been discussed and exposed within HTML WG fora
JS: The problem with the surveys is that we don't know what the chairs are thinking, so a seemingly repetition might point to a detail that is clear to us that might be overlooked to the chairs. We do not know the context of their decisions until they are made, then we see where more information would have been needed.
Sub-team: ARIA mapping:
RS: We have to do more work on tangible canvas, clickable regions, but that's rather post Last Call.
<oedipus> it still bothers me that the WHAT WG and W3C drafts diverge (they are, according to hixie, materially different)
JF: I am concerned about the bug that Steve filed [number?]
<richardschwerdtfe> sorry, dropping off
<JF> steve's bug on role=presentation: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11956
<JF> Bug 11956 - restrict use of role=presentation
<oedipus> s/bug 11956/bug 11956 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11956/
JB: There might be other issues that had been resolved but have been shifting afterwards. We need methods to monitor this.
JS: From time to time it might be necessary to re-read the whole spec.
JB: I believe there are a couple of weeks in the Last Call process to allow for re-reading of a stable version.
<oedipus> timeline to last call: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Sep/0074.html
<oedipus> "April 22, 2011 - all issues resolved; LC resolution presented to group Consequences of missing this date: this would be solely a failure by the chairs, so we would publicly eat crow and plot a new date."
<oedipus> (1 month)
<oedipus> "May 22, 2011 - fixable LC objections addressed; if all goes well, LC resolution carries Consequences of missing this date: try LC resolution again."
<judy> judy thx gregory for the reminder of the timeline to last call schedule, and notes the explanations for april and may dates
JB: I'm not speaking on behalf of the chairs, but I suggest that people look at the April 22 and May 22 date.
JF: Based on those two dates, it seems to me that they already missed on the April 22 date. We should request clarification on the date whether they have a revised agenda.
<oedipus> GJR notes that the only replies to the Timeline Announcement were replies from editors of HTML5 modules (including SteveF) confirming that their drafts will proceed in tandem with the main spec or not
JB: My impression is that they are very eager to meet those timelines. Regarding accessibility features there are still considerable concerns. I hope that clarification can address those concerns.
JF: There are a number of objections, and I was wondering which of these will be addressed. I'm not making any reproaches, I'm just curious which dates apply.
<oedipus> GJR believes that he and leonie watson are supposed to do a comprehensive review of HTML5 forms
<Zakim> oedipus, you wanted to say the editor's draft is a constatnly moving target -- review latest editor's draft or latest PWD?
JB: Division into specific sections made it possible to review the spec in reasonable parts.
GR: The spec as a moving target is a problem.
JB: We will address this issue.
Steve Faulkner agreed to scribe next week, although a number of us are involved in aface-to-face meeting.
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/Lst Call/Last Call/ Succeeded: s/JH:/JB:/ FAILED: s/JH/JB/ Succeeded: s/Gez/Gregory/ Succeeded: s/mail to avoid a Formal Objection/mail; which would morph into a Formal Objection, though would be nice to be able to avoid that/ Succeeded: s/RichS on Bug 11239:/RichS on Bug 11239 and hixie's latest spec patch/ Succeeded: s/WAI has taking up/The WAI CG has taken up/ Succeeded: s/email is often insufficient/email and IRC are often insufficient/ Succeeded: s/on the body element is valid./on the body element is currently valid--SteveF has filed a bug to limit use of role="presentation"/ Succeeded: s/a huge amount of work/a huge amount of thoughtful work/ Succeeded: s/@figcaption is another candidate for such a review/@figcaption was interesting because there were some new questions to explore./ WARNING: Bad s/// command: s/[number?]/bug 11956 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11956/ Succeeded: s/proceed in tandem with the main spec/proceed in tandem with the main spec or not/ Succeeded: s/[number?]/bug 11956/ Found Scribe: Martin_Kliehm Found ScribeNick: kliehm Present: John_Foliot Janina_Sajka Michael_Cooper Gregory_Rosmaita Judy_Brewer Eric_Carlson Martin_Kliehm Rich_Schwerdtfeger Regrets: Kenny_Johar Laura_Carlson Leonie_Watson Silvia_Pfeiffer Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Apr/0355.html Found Date: 28 Apr 2011 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2011/04/28-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]