HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

15 Mar 2012


See also: IRC log


John_Foliot, Judy, Mike, Cooper, Janina_Sajka, Rich, paulc, Steve_Faulkner


<trackbot> Date: 15 March 2012

<scribe> scribe: janina

We're small attendance, so meeting will be short, but there's a report from Text Subteam that we will take ...

<Judy> Resumed meeting this Tuesday, March 13th, 1pm EDT

<Judy> http://www.w3.org/2012/03/13-text-minutes.html

<Judy> 1. Mainly discussed an update on the PFWG ARIA TF F2F MTG last week, including implications regarding longdesc and issue 204, which concerns whether ARIA should be able to point to hidden content

<Judy> - PFWG concluded nothing in 204 that would make describedBY an acceptable alternative for longdesc

<Judy> - We noted that this mechanism may be otherwise useful, but would become dangerous at the point that it is combined with tab order focus.

<Judy> - ARIA documentation clarifications in progress; or now done

<Judy> 2. Continued concern that the question on longdesc still needs a fair hearing, and that the question is recycling extensively but has not actually been called.

<Judy> 3. Brief discussion of some possibilities for updating the CP on meta name-generator

Judy: Remider to people of the ongoing meeting time for Text, it's Tuesdays at 1PM Boston

Mike, if you're talking, we're hearing science-fictiony noise

We're good now ...

john: I have submitted a CP on 204
... Also have ongoing thread with Rich to make certain that my statements are factually correct

mike: OK, unsure of where we are on the agenda ... ...
... Also wanted to get Canvas update today, but no Rich
... Anything else to add re text alternatives on this call today?

judy: Expect that Text Subteam will need to continue to be extremely active given issues still unresolved
... These will also take considerable work

john: Also want to note Issue-203 which has some dependencies on text alternatives
... Noting this was rejected -- noting that it can't be resolved because it's dependencies are unresolved
... Just want to note that on record

mike: I see that, unsure what the TF can do at this point
... The TF isn't an individual entity in the WG process that puts proposals, unlike what individuals do in that respect
... In response to John I'm still unclear what the TF's next step would be

john: This is how I see it, the CP outlines requirements and dependencies,
... If that's to remain rejected, I guess the appeal is the remaining option, though not my preference
... The point of the CP(and the Issue) was to make certain key functionality was not lost
... It's inaction from the CHTML Chairs on Issue-30 that blocks proper action on these other issues ...

judy: Want to first speak to John's concern on 203 ...
... I would note I came across a similar conundrum working on a Fig-Caption Word Count proposal ...
... Mike, I'm also somewhat confused by what I thought I heard you saying ...
... Were you saying the TF doesn't put proposals to the WG?

Mike: Exactly what I'm saying.
... For instance, no TF "account" for TF opinions, only individual

judy: In terms of WBS, sure, but proposing positions was a core reason for TF

mike: We've never definitively taken position from the TF on longdesc

judy: There has indeed been a TF resolution on longdesc, the Laura proposal is a TF supported

mike: I haven't taken a position, have not endorsed one, so if there's supposedly such a position, there's something wrong here
... I'm aware there are individuals that do not endorrse

janina: There definitely was -- a resolution on the call and the follow up email consensus call

mike: Want to hear current state on Canvas -- to move on ...

rich: So, I've been working with Ian providing requirements and use cases
... I don't know everything a11y needs is there, need to look forward
... My initial reaction is that it may be a bit more heavyweight than needed
... What I'm hearing inside of IBM from people using canvas is that it's much lighterweight than SVG
... With Canvas we don't need an element for everything drawn
... Don't know who wins on that, but I know I need to look further on Ian's latest
... Mike, do you know whether Ian has vetted this with app developers?

mike: That is a key question ...
... would not want this to end up as different browser implementations

rich: agree

mike: We have the situation of a large enterprise being able to implement, butneed also to enable the small shop and individual author to implement
... Frank's proposal looks much simpler to me from that perspective

irhc; I also don't know the answer to that at this point

rich: At one point the proposals were missing the ability to clear the path, for instance
... This was missing in Frank's, don't yet know about Ian's
... But I think the most important feedback needs to be from app devs

mike: Don't know for sure, but suspect there might not have been much feedback from devs on Ian's current proposal
... that kind of feedback does take time

rich: IBM is definitely looking at canvas vs SVG because of our apps in data analytics
... I know people think we're doing a rich text editor because I talk about that, but it's actually data analytics for us
... Also, WebGL is built on HTML canvas

mike: There's a close mapping between canvas and the way native desktop apps work in many, many cases today
... we may disagree on whether creating text editing is appropriate or not
... but it is possible to do that
... in the end, everything is a bit map

rich: So, from this perspective, the a11y support is deep experience for us because we've done this all before with Windows (and other GUI)

<Stevef> FYI more canvas YUI http://fohr.github.com/blossom/

paul: Problem here is that we have a close date for proposals and Ian hasn't submitted one yet
... Regardless of what Ian may have put into the spec, there's no counter proposal
... We're missing a cp for what Ian has added into the spec -- and that's a problem
... it's unobvious how much overlap between Frank's cp and what Ian has put into the spec
... I believe that's what Rich is saying he needs to look into

rich: I'm unsure of what has changed, there's no diff

paul: So, whether heyavy or light weight, I'm concerned that it's unobvious how much overlap
... And secondly that there's also no CP

<Stevef> richardschwerdtfe: http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker

rich: Could Ian be asked for a CP?

paul: Any wg member can do that ...

mike: So this is tantamount to asking him to respond to Bugs yet defend the changes in the spec

paul: More importantly, in this particular case there's no association with a bug this time

rich: Yes, he didn't follow any kind of process here

mike: There are many changes he makes that aren't responsive to particular bugs

paul: My point is simply that there's no corelation here to any particular bug

mike: Speaking from an editor's perspective, sometimes one needs to make a judgement call ...
... I think what we need at this point re Ian's path changes is an assessment whether these are in line with our requirements

rich: Can try to look at that, but it's hard without a diff or a CP
... It's particular time consuming to reverse engineer this
... Mike, do you know whether the HTML Chairs have reviewed Frank's proposal? The others that went in

mike: They have a process, first step being a comment on whether the CPs are "well formed"
... Sometimes this takes time -- along time
... I would ask that we try to have a qualitative assessment on Frank vs Ian's proposals by next week ...

<Stevef> richardscherdtfe: http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Canvas lists what hixies been adding

rich: I'll do my best, noting that there's a lot to look at here and many of us have a back log of work given recent travel and conference meetings

mike: If not by next week, can we say two weeks from now?

Steve: There's some helpful info on the WHAT Wiki page ...

mike: Do want to ask for scribe for next week, anyone?
... Silence, unfortunately!
... I'll do it if no other volunteer

john: If I'm working from home, I'll do so, or back up the scribing

mike: Any objections to adjournment at this time?

[no objections]

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.136 (CVS log)
$Date: 2012/03/15 16:11:48 $

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)

Found Scribe: janina
Inferring ScribeNick: janina

WARNING: No "Topic:" lines found.

Default Present: John_Foliot, Judy, Mike, Cooper, Janina_Sajka, Rich, paulc, Steve_Faulkner
Present: John_Foliot Judy Mike Cooper Janina_Sajka Rich paulc Steve_Faulkner
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012Mar/0172.html
Found Date: 15 Mar 2012
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/03/15-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]