<scribe> scribe:Loretta

Proposed new ARIA/WCAG techique [Using aria-describdby and alert for Error Feedback in Forms]

Tim isn't at the meeting. This is an early draft, which is fine, especially while we are learing to write techniques

Recommend just using HTML, not HTML5 specifically, for ARIA techniques.

JN: The group is reviewing the comments in the survey.

LGR: Is there anything in the comments that we don't think Tim should act on?

Resolution: Leave open.

MJ: Difference between how to use attributes vs how to address technique?

BB: Is the use of alt="" with required attribute legitimate? Does this meet 1.1.1?

LGR: We may need a separate 1.1.1 technique if we think this is ok.

Using the HTML5 required attribute to indicate that a value is required in an input field.

DT: Comments are looking familiar! Will go back and review to be sure that comments have been addressed.
... Updated technique this morning, so comments may be on an older version.

AS: My comments are current.

JN: Could we move this technique from the Trace wiki to the W3C wiki?
... See link at the top of the Trace wiki main page.
... Or at least create future techniques there.
... Should we try to revise and review this on the fly?

<MichaelC> please use this URL for the technique on the WCAG wiki: http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Techniques/ARIA/Using_aria-describedby_and_alert_for_Error_Feedback_in_Forms

JN: What versions of what browsers support HTML5?
... We can put that information into Technology Notes for HTML5, and just note anything that is specific to the technique in the User Agent Notes.

<DavidTodd> Using the html5 required attribute to validate (or "describe") a required input field

<MichaelC> please use this URL for the technique on the WCAG wiki: http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Techniques/ARIA/Using_the_required_attribute_to_indicate_a_required_input_field

<jamesn> DavidTodd, User Agent testing notes can be found here - http://john.foliot.ca/required-inputs/

<jamesn> AS: Should test procedures check all instances or just one?

<jamesn> AS: What about consistency?

<jamesn> LGR: Note sure we have always been consistent. Suggest going forward not to make the test procedure check all

<jamesn> DT: do we want to mention specific browsers in the user agent notes?

<jamesn> JN: Yes - where the user agent notes are more specific than general user agent notes.

David will research browser behavior for user agent notes and bring the technique back for review.

Otherwise, we think it looks fine.

MJ: Going back to Adam's comments about browsers, will there be something about general browser behavior in the description?

JN: Both is fine, in my opinion.
... In this case, there are 2 different UA behaviors in the description: browser rendering and screen reader behavior.

<DavidTodd> Sorry, have to drop off to get to another call.

MJ: Trying to decide how focused to keep techniques.

JN: Who can't make next week's call, besides James and Michael? Josh will run the call.

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)

Found Scribe: Loretta
Inferring ScribeNick: Loretta
Default Present: Joseph_Scheuhammer, James_Nurthen, Marc_Johlic, Cooper, Bruce_Bailey, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Adam_Solomon, David_Todd
Present: Joseph_Scheuhammer James_Nurthen Marc_Johlic Cooper Bruce_Bailey Loretta_Guarino_Reid Adam_Solomon David_Todd
Got date from IRC log name: 27 Feb 2012
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/02/27-html-techs-tf-minutes.html
People with action items: 

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