HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

02 Jun 2011


See also: IRC log


Eric, Janina, Michael_Cooper, Mike, Marco, JF, Lynn_Holdsworth, [IPcaller], Cynthia_Shelly


<trackbot> Date: 02 June 2011

<janina> Meeting: HTML-A11Y telecon

<janina> Scribe: Steve_Faulkner

<janina> agenda: this

JS: Organizing Last Call Review
... Laura is monitoring the bugs
... Bug triage team will need to continue checking the bugs for a11y keyword
... Martin Kliem not on the call, maybe a bit busier than before.
... we might ask PF and WCAG to read various parts of the specs and also people on the TF
... need to decide what should we read and what safely skip? and have at least 2 or 3 people reading each section

JF: good chunks of the specs are really technical and have no impact on TF work. should we check the entire thing or focus on area with more impact?

<LJW> +1 to focusing our efforts.

JS: yes. pull out the TOC for each specs and select parts with UI impact
... we also need to look at the deadlines

MC: 9 weeks left

MS: happy to help with selecting which parts of the specs should be checked by the TF

JF: should we start with the HTML5 for web authors?

MS: yes but there are also implementation issues that we need to verify

<Zakim> MikeSmith, you wanted to say I will be very glad to help with determining which parts of the spec to focus on for review

CS: also user agent behavior can impact accessibility

JF: we need to make sure we have the right resources
... in the TF we are relatively thin on the technical side

JS: we should identify what to review first and then the resources
... should we look at the TOC?

<MichaelC> HTML 5, 25 May 2011

MC: [reading out top level TOC]
... 2 Common infrastructure, probably not a priority, but important for vendors. We should ask Apple, Microsoft, Opera, etc to find people
... Apple: James Craig, Opera: Charles, Mozilla: David B, MS: Cynthia
... 3 Semantics, structure, and APIs of HTML documents

MS: 3.2.3 Global attributes is one review task, 3.2.5 Content models another one
... 3.2.7 WAI-ARIA: finish our work and review

3.5 Dynamic markup insertion: probably nees a quick look (CS)

4 The elements of HTML

4.2 Document metadata, we need to review it

4.3 Scripting, maybe

4.4 Sections, yes

4.5 Grouping content, yes

4.6 Text-level semantics, yes

4.7 Edits, yes

4.8 Embedded content, need to split it: img, iframe (seamless attribute makes it important for accessibility)+embed+object+param, video+audio+source+track+ 4.8.10 Media

4.8.11 The canvas element

4.8.12-14: map, area, image maps together

4.8.15 MathML, need to try to find people, but yes for review (implementation issues)

4.8.16 SVG, yes

4.9 Tabular data, yes

4.10 Forms, yes, careful review

4.11 Interactive elements, we might want to split it

4.11.1 The details element with 4.11.2 The summary element

CS: would be good to get content producers to review the specs

4.12 Links, yes

MS: 4.13 Common idioms without dedicated elements, seems to relate to ARIA landmarks

CS and to WCAG techniques

MS: 4.14 Matching HTML elements using selectors, review with interactive elements (Cynthia)

5 Loading Web pages, maybe UAAG can comment

6 Web application APIs, yes in one block

CS: i'll get someone in MS to review this.

MS: 7 User interaction, we should break it down

focus and keyboard shortcuts one review, content editable and grammar and spelling checking one review, drag and drop by its own, Editing APIs should be part of both content editable and with script reviews

hidden attribute and activation with keyboard focus or scripting

CS: i'll find someone in MS and help

MS: 8 The HTML syntax, should we worry about this? with parsing maybe, low priority

9 The XHTML syntax, same

10 Rendering, probably not normative, but ask UAAG and part of interactions. also ask implementors

11 Obsolete features, should we review the all section or cherry pick?

review all

12 IANA considerations, probably not used by AT

12.4 text/cache-manifest might have AT implications

MS: will be catched in review for section 5

CS: also vendors and content providers should review it

JS: we need a wiki with all these notes and then assign the sections to reviewers
... we didn't discuss how to determine that we have consensus, but we'll need to do it soon

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.136 (CVS log)
$Date: 2011/06/02 16:07:48 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.136  of Date: 2011/05/12 12:01:43  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/MS: 8 The HTML syntax//
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: Marco_Ranon
Found Scribe: Steve_Faulkner

WARNING: No "Topic:" lines found.

Default Present: Eric, Janina, Michael_Cooper, Mike, Marco, JF, Lynn_Holdsworth, [IPcaller], Cynthia_Shelly
Present: Eric Janina Michael_Cooper Mike Marco JF Lynn_Holdsworth [IPcaller] Cynthia_Shelly
Regrets: Laura_Carlson
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Jun/0012.html
Found Date: 02 Jun 2011
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2011/06/02-html-a11y-minutes.html
People with action items: 

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.

WARNING: No "Topic: ..." lines found!  
Resulting HTML may have an empty (invalid) <ol>...</ol>.

Explanation: "Topic: ..." lines are used to indicate the start of 
new discussion topics or agenda items, such as:
<dbooth> Topic: Review of Amy's report

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]