HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

23 Feb 2012


See also: IRC log


John_Foliot, Cooper, Cynthia_Shelly, Janina_Sajka, Steve_Faulkner, Judy, Léonie_Watson, Rich


<trackbot> Date: 23 February 2012

<janina> Meeting: HTML-A11Y Task Force Teleconference

<scribe> scribe: MichaelC

Meetings on 1 & 8 March: Who's Available?

js: who's unavailable next week?

John, Janina, Léonie at CSUN

js: what about following week?

Janina, Michael, Cynthia at PF FtF and / or SXSW

jb: would like to schedule a fallback meeting time

js: haven't succeeded in past at finding a time

jf: hard to do meetings after start of working day Pacific

RESOLUTION: Next meeting is 15 March 2012

js: note some of us will have face to face opportunities at the upcoming locales and may have opportunity to get work done

Subteam Reports: Canvas; ARIA Mapping; Text

lw: Bug triage meeting once every other week to track new bugs

most not accessibility

<LeonieW> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=16018

but want input on a couple

wanted to explore whether form controls that are disabled should be focusable or not

HTML doesn't exclude disabled controls

the bug requests that they be non-focusable

cs: think most browsers remove them from tab order

lw: bug filer goes into specifics of UA behaviour

jf: if disabled should be non-focusable

mc: checking spec, apparently via a double negative spec says disabled form controls are not focusable

so bug is on what happens if you use tabindex

js: benefit to landing on controls and knowing they're disabled, otoh benefit to not being bothered with them

cs: propose correct behaviour would be not to focus disabled controls

mc: even if tabindex set?

cs: yes

mc: ok, but would change meaning of tabindex in a limited circumstance

cs: means "disabled" is a higher order bit than "tabindex"

RESOLUTION: add a11ytf keyword to 16018

lw: note bug triage sub-team is low on members

only Léonie, Michael, Hans regularly participating


cs: working on the spec

table is more dynamic now so easier to use, since lots of columns

some details being added

-- Text

jb: discussed meta name=generator and denial of reopen request

thought the denial didn't address the main point

and questions were on tangential aspects

question of pursuing Formal Objection, something the text sub-team thought might be needed in next few weeks

also looked at HTML-ISSUE-204

aria-describedby vs longdesc

have requested coordination discussion

<JF> +q

also looked at location of alt guidance change proposal

is more of a TF item now

need a way to keep discussion moving, given that meetings canceled next couple weeks

and address questions already raised

finally looked at figcaption

ended up not filing a change proposal

evidence for cutoff length wasn't as strong as expected

still interested in this issue, may work in background and bring forward later

so this is no longer on the urgent path

Text sub-team also not meeting next week

jf: am in process of putting together a test suite for aria-describedby

focus on HTML-ISSUE-30 as well as HTML-ISSUE-204

note your blog entry on aria-hidden useful


I plan to do same for aria-describedby as I did for aria-hidden

rs: why use aria-describedby in place of longdesc? it's a hack

jb: think there's not understanding of the issues behind it

rs: setting aria-hidden not necessarily hidden from AAPI

ARIA UAIG permits not hiding it

want to address via new ARIA property down the road, not misuse the current version of ARIA

jb: need to clarify some stuff

<discussion of what to clarify where>

cs, rs: have proposal to add aria-describedat in ARIA 1.1

js: but that doesn't solve the immediate situation, so we still have to address

jf: there are some contradictions that need to be clarified in ARIA

and then state that the current HTML proposal doesn't meet the use case requirements

-- Canvas

rs: all change proposals are in

one on caret and selection

resubmitted an earlier one minus text-based line and focus ring

because what's in spec now is fine

frank submitted a proposal to use bounds of object for hit testing

hasn't been reviewed

would probably need some proposed ARIA 1.1 features to support

cs: is this what we discussed last November?

rs: he submitted one that we did discuss

but also another one that uses caret and selection in script apis

that we haven't examined

there's a third change proposal that you shouldn't do rich text editing in canvas because it's too hard

not sure what to do with that as a change proposal

working on a presentation for SXSW that will demo this in three browsers

when will change proposals be reviewed?

js: it's started

rs: due to travel over next month, will be hard to respond to counter-proposals

js: hasn't come up yet, can request these things not be tossed our way too quickly

cs: asks Rich to send concerns to Frank

jb: CS can you help on that?

cs: can't get response inside Microsoft before 29th

<of March?>

would be helpful to ask chairs to put this at end of queue

<March company deadlines make hard to work on W3C stuff right now>

jb: process guidance confusing and affecting our response times

Issue-203 Media Element Text Description http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/203

js: we don't have a whole

bifurcation of the proposals is affecting our success

understand why need to have breaking down of the problem

but we're chasing details and not meeting the whole

maybe not useful to pursue details

jf: would like to request HTML-ISSUE-203 be put on hold until outstanding issues resolved

js: chairs were happy to put processing on hold, but wanted a conditional proposal in by deadline

but I'm not convinced the conditional proposal working in our favour

cs: could we do a conditional proposal that outlines the various conditions we would support?

jf: that's a

js: decision tree

jf: all the options we're bringing forward are in limbo

don't know how to put together a change proposal

maybe CS proposal not to close issue until dependencies resolved is the way to go

cs: there was proposal to resolve using resolution to HTML-ISSUE-30

but what happens if we're not happy with resolution to that?

would be good to provide options

js: an aria-describedat solution might work here also

jf: but that doesn't exist yet

and hard to substantiate a proposal with something that doesn't yet exist

<related examples tossed around>

so we're chasing our tails

js: we're getting pushed into talking about Y when we need to talk about X

cs: we had come to agreement on a conditional proposal that seemed to satisfy everyone

we should write that, backing out might seem like bad faith

jf: but don't know how to write it sensibly

to many if-then-else in it

but will take a try

js: reminder we're past deadline, so need it by tomorrow

jf: do we let it go then?

jb: do proposal as a placeholder, we can refine later

prefer not to drop this

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.136 (CVS log)
$Date: 2012/02/23 17:05:51 $

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/faour/favour/
Found Scribe: MichaelC
Inferring ScribeNick: MichaelC
Default Present: John_Foliot, Cooper, Cynthia_Shelly, Janina_Sajka, Steve_Faulkner, Judy, Léonie_Watson, Rich
Present: John_Foliot Cooper Cynthia_Shelly Janina_Sajka Steve_Faulkner Judy Léonie_Watson Rich
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012Feb/0162.html
Found Date: 23 Feb 2012
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/02/23-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]