14:36:27 RRSAgent has joined #html-a11y
14:36:27 logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/03/29-html-a11y-irc
14:36:29 RRSAgent, make logs world
14:36:31 Zakim, this will be 2119
14:36:31 ok, trackbot; I see WAI_PFWG(HTML TF)11:00AM scheduled to start in 24 minutes
14:36:32 Meeting: HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference
14:36:32 Date: 29 March 2012
14:36:42 Zakim, call Mike
14:36:42 ok, MikeSmith; the call is being made
14:36:47 LeifHSilli: ready
14:37:10 it is still saying 2119 is restricted
14:37:21 s/LeifHSilli: /member:LeifHSilli, /
14:38:31 ditto
14:38:57 Stevef has joined #html-a11y
14:39:02 MichaelC, any clues about what we should do?
14:39:03 so, I guess no meeting today
14:39:18 yeah
14:39:25 how about providing the new code?
14:39:25 let's do that if we can
14:39:30 I can monitor 2119 on the side at 11
14:39:46 Let's do another code for today
14:39:57 how about Morse
14:40:04 ?
14:40:05 Too terse
14:40:06 zakim, room for 15 for 90 minutes?
14:40:09 sorry, MichaelC; could not schedule an adhoc conference; passcode overlap; if you do not have a fixed code you may try again
14:40:37 zakim, move 9248 to here
14:40:37 MichaelC, I see Team_(wai)14:40Z in the schedule but not yet started. Perhaps you mean "this will be 9248".
14:40:45 Code is 9248 for today
14:40:58 MichaelC has changed the topic to: HTML-A11Y Task Force; Zakim code 9248 for 29 March 2012
14:41:16 zakim, this will be 9248
14:41:16 ok, MichaelC; I see Team_(wai)14:40Z scheduled to start now
14:41:26 MichaelC, can you e-mail the list with that code?
14:41:39 Zakim, call Mike
14:41:39 ok, MikeSmith; the call is being made
14:41:51 I'm in - Leif
14:42:45 agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012Mar/0396.html
14:45:05 zakim, who's here?
14:45:05 Team_(wai)14:40Z has not yet started, JF
14:45:06 On IRC I see Stevef, RRSAgent, Zakim, JF, LeifHSilli, richardschwerdtfe, janina, MichaelC, MikeSmith, trackbot, [tm]
14:45:27 zakim, move 9248 to here
14:45:28 ok, MichaelC; that matches Team_(wai)14:40Z
14:45:29 scribe: janina
14:45:49 +Cynthia_Shelly
14:45:55 zakim, take up item 1
14:45:55 I see nothing on the agenda
14:46:09 topic: Canvas Status
14:46:12 agenda+ clarify current state of canvas API spec w.r.t revert request
14:46:13 agenda+ follow up on longdesc/describedat discussion from last week
14:46:14 agenda+ HTML WG f2f: possible topics for HTML a11y discussion
14:46:15 agenda+ Subteam Reports: Text; ARIA Mappings; Canvas; Bug Triage; Media;
14:46:16 agenda+ Other Business
14:46:17 agenda+ Identify Scribe for 05 April
14:46:31 zakim, take up item 1
14:46:31 agendum 1. "clarify current state of canvas API spec w.r.t revert request" taken up [from MikeSmith]
14:46:54 ms: All changes back to March 7 are backed out
14:47:09 ms: WHAT 7023 is backed out
14:47:24 http://dev.w3.org/html5/2dcontext/
14:47:42 rs: What's the way forward here?
14:47:57 ms: Chairs are actively discussing that
14:48:03 rs: Have a suggestion ...
14:48:17 rs: We have two major vendor suggestions
14:48:24 rs: Microsoft has one approach
14:48:40 rs: Hickson (others) have intro'd an approach that is also workable
14:48:57 rs: If we actually got a CP from Hickson, it might help move forward
14:49:24 rs: The problem is that editor will stop working on this for some time, and we'll just drift
14:49:36 rs: But if we get his CP we can tweak and move forward
14:49:53 ms: Agree we should look for a way to avoid forking
14:50:14 rs: Also, if he submits a CP he explains why he does certain things, and that would be very helpful
14:50:47 ms: Agree we need to figure out way forward, can't do more today though
14:50:52 zakim, next item
14:50:52 agendum 2. "follow up on longdesc/describedat discussion from last week" taken up [from MikeSmith]
14:51:35 ms: Noting the describedat proposal and discussion of it
14:51:45 +Q
14:51:53 ms: Seems clear regardless of what happens with describedat it seems it's not in a HTML 5 rec timeline
14:52:17 ms: So doesn't affect the I30 reopen request
14:52:33 paulc has joined #html-a11y
14:52:34 ack JF
14:52:39 q+
14:53:17 jf: There's a larger issue here of a flurry of activity that seems to discourage progress because we don't have i30 resolution
14:53:59 What is the passcode for the call?
14:54:11 Paul: 9248 for today
14:54:59 ms: Clearly the way chairs chose to address this, by dividing it into separate proposals, they've made it more clear about various dependent issues
14:55:06 +[Microsoft]
14:55:19 zakim, [Microsoft] has paulc
14:55:19 +paulc; got it
14:57:26 q?
14:58:01 janina: Notes that Text Subteam and also PF this week discussed describedat and longdesc, both agree that describedat not ready in currently published HTML 5 timeframe
14:58:15 janina: Therefore recommend move forward on i30 so we can reinstate longdesc
14:58:31 ack richardschwerdtfe
14:58:34 jf: Exactly, we can predicate on what might happen in a year or two
14:59:04 rs: Now working with browser mfgs to spec describedat, this will take some time
14:59:16 rs: This will get things in, but probably not in time for HTML 5
14:59:37 rs: If there's another cycle through Last Call, perhaps, but not on the current timetable
15:00:00 rs: Believe the WG is saying longdesc needs a replacement for better uptake, and I agree
15:00:10 rs: But meantime, we cannot simply shoot longdesc out of the water
15:00:26 q?
15:00:27 rs: We can't say "obsolete but conforming" right now either, because we don't have a replacement to point to
15:00:58 rms: So we need a TF consensus on what to say to the chairs and the wg
15:01:14 ms: Want to ask if anyone objects to that?
15:01:31 Judy has joined #html-a11y
15:01:42 -Cynthia_Shelly
15:02:01 +Q
15:02:46 q+
15:02:50 +Judy
15:03:05 +Cynthia_Shelly
15:03:20 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/InstateLongdesc
15:03:44 q?
15:03:47 ack JF
15:04:06 jf: Mike, I think your suggestion has broad support
15:04:14 q+
15:04:15 jf: What kind of unambiguous statement do the chairs want
15:04:40 I am on IRC and on the call.
15:05:09 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012Mar/0389.html
15:05:20 Janina to establish that describedat is not being pursued with a
15:05:20 completion that would make it relevant in an HTML5 timeframe.
15:05:21
15:05:41 This is from an email from Sam
15:06:27 jb: This is from a coordination discussion
15:06:41 paulc, ?
15:08:21 "Chairs would like a statement from PFWG/janina as to whether ARIA 1.1 would be done within the timeframe of HTML5 for timeline"
15:08:41 q?
15:09:13 +[Microsoft.a]
15:09:15 -Cynthia_Shelly
15:09:49 agenda+ Issue 204 - what to do? http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/204
15:10:17 q?
15:10:21 "Janina to establish that describedat is not being pursued with a completion that would make it relevant in an HTML5 timeframe."
15:10:27 janina: Reiterating we refer to the currently published timeline
15:10:34 -[Microsoft.a]
15:10:50 +[Microsoft.a]
15:11:14 Judy: I can verify this
15:11:21 q?
15:11:23 q-
15:11:26 ack Stevef
15:11:28 judy: So, can we move to next steps here
15:12:08 sf: Don't disagree with longdesc as conforming, though want to restate my concerns with longdesc current and future support
15:12:21 sf: Want to say something about it's limitations
15:12:22 q?
15:12:29 ms: Are you supporting longdesc at this time
15:12:32 sf: yes
15:13:39 q?
15:14:27 cyns has joined #html-a11y
15:14:30 q+
15:14:36 zakim, Microsoft has me
15:14:36 +cyns; got it
15:14:41 ack [IPcaller]
15:14:47 q+
15:14:52 draft RESOLUTION: The HTML-A11Y Task Force confirms that ARIA-DescribedAT will not be ready for HTML 5 in HTML 5's currently published timeframe, and therefore reaffirms its support of Laura's authored CP to reinstate longdesc (Issue-30)
15:15:01 ack richardschwerdtfe
15:15:09 q-
15:15:13 zakim, [IPcaller] is LeifHSilli
15:15:13 +LeifHSilli; got it
15:15:44 rs: I think if we put longdesc back in we leave it as is, the better solution will be describedat, when we have it ready
15:17:01 +1
15:17:06 +1
15:17:07 +1
15:17:09 rs: That's just to reinstate, not to change anything in implementation, correct?
15:17:12 yes
15:17:14 +1
15:17:34 +1 (but I wonder if we all agree about "just instate")
15:18:14 can live with
15:18:29 can ive with
15:18:34 RESOLUTION: The HTML-A11Y Task Force confirms that ARIA-DescribedAT will not be ready for HTML 5 in HTML 5's currently published timeframe, and therefore reaffirms its support of Laura's authored CP to reinstate longdesc (Issue-30)
15:19:53 zakim, next item
15:19:53 agendum 3. "HTML WG f2f: possible topics for HTML a11y discussion" taken up [from MikeSmith]
15:20:32 ms: Notes that HTML F2F scheduled for first week in May in SF Bay Area
15:20:48 ms: Hoping we can get some a11y agenda in, and discussion with developers
15:21:02 ms: My candidate would be canvas proposals, esp Hickson's recent changes
15:21:20 ms: Then also Microsoft's alternative proposals
15:21:23 q+
15:21:33 q+
15:21:45 ms: So, implementers particularly hope for Microsoft, Google, and Mozilla
15:22:04 ms: If we had some a11y implementers it would be really helpful
15:22:11 q+
15:22:19 cs: First week of may in the bay area?
15:22:21 ms: yes
15:22:39 cs: Do we know which particular days the TF would be meeting
15:23:13 paul: there's two days of HTML and two days of Web Apps, also think Web Apps security, but no request specifically for the TF
15:23:29 cs: Happy to ask Frank to come if we can be specific,
15:23:47 ms: Not saying a separate meeting of TF, but getting this an agendum on the WG meeting
15:24:03 cs: So, if we can set a particular time, and not wait for unconference, that would help
15:24:06 F2F notice: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Mar/0011.html
15:24:09 q?
15:24:11 q?
15:24:15 ack Judy
15:25:12 jb: It seens December reverts caused disruption on canvas, and the most recent ones as well, so wondering if we can make progress before the F2F?
15:25:21 jb: Or is it sufficient to wait until then?
15:25:37 jb: Also want to register dismay that we're getting changes out of process, without CP's
15:26:02 jb: Objecting that editor can make changes without following process and thus disrupt the work of others
15:26:42 jb: So wonder whether discussion in May at the F2F is sufficient soon for clarity--to clear up the confusion caused by recent reverts
15:27:07 ack richardschwerdtfe
15:27:14 s/caused disruption on canvas/caused disruption on canvas accessibility developments/
15:27:27 rs: I have all of IBM's data analytics business waiting on this to be resolved
15:27:44 rs: We have nothing that is in the spec to give us location information that we need
15:27:52 rs: We're also going to need this in SVG
15:28:07 See http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/issue-status.html#ISSUE-201
15:28:16 rs: I would like the Chairs to ask the Editor to bring his proposal in via WG process, with a CP
15:28:41 rs: It seems flash is going away in the industry as a rendering platform
15:28:43 Ted O'Connor has offered to provide a CP based on the approach that Ian is proposing.
15:28:54 rs: Canvas could take it's place, but we're not ready and we need it to happen
15:28:58 q?
15:29:09 pc: Ted O'Conner has offered to do that actual CP
15:29:21 pc: I believe the date agreed for it is April 11
15:29:28 q?
15:29:35 rs: Will it include path and hit region?
15:29:38 pc: Don't know
15:29:51 s/hit region/addHitRegion/
15:30:00 cs: So, if we're expecting a CP mid April, early May is an excellent time for a discussion on it
15:30:15 rs: So, I'll communicate my concernes to Ted
15:30:15 q?
15:30:20 ack JF
15:30:53 jf: Other topics we might cover--we still have need to attach non-timestamped text to media
15:31:01 q+
15:31:31 q?
15:31:46 q+
15:32:01 ms: Suggest you send email suggesting and summarizing this
15:32:28 q?
15:32:47 janina: Suggest discussing in Text Subteam first?
15:33:03 judy: Agree that discussing details and coming forward with proposals has been working for us
15:33:11 ack richardschwerdtfe
15:33:27 rs: I wouldn't say we have nothing --
15:33:43 rs: If visible on page, you can use DescribedBy
15:33:51 rs: If only a string you can hide it as well
15:33:57 q?
15:34:20 jf: Like to get clarity around what we need to do
15:34:42 jf: There's nothing in the spec at this point
15:34:54 rs: Do chairs support authoring gudiance in the spec itself?
15:35:21 pc: Think this is the wrong question, though will point out Sam has previously said no to this
15:35:32 pc: But, it's not what the chairs believe but what the wg believes
15:35:49 pc: Sam's rason was that this kind of material tends to be controversial
15:36:15 rs: So just trying to save cycles for us
15:36:37 q?
15:36:54 ack janina
15:37:12 ack j
15:37:30 ms: Want to get back to F2F
15:37:51 ms: Want to ask those who have a11y implementer contacts, to get commitments to attend
15:38:03 ms: What about Zerkov from Irkutsk?
15:38:17 ms: Could someone sponsor him? I think it would be useful to get him if we can.
15:38:29 ms: Or David Boltor?
15:38:46 rs: I can ask, don't have their budget!
15:39:03 ms: Also the Chrome team and we're meeting near Google's headquarters
15:39:10 -LeifHSilli
15:39:16 rs: I can ask
15:39:21 ms: Appreciate that very much
15:39:44 q?
15:40:18 ms: Also would be good someone from Apple, perhaps James Craig? Do we know who's doing implementation for webkit?
15:40:28 ms: I'll talk with Ted about Apple/Webkit
15:40:48 q?
15:41:03 LeifHSilli has joined #html-a11y
15:43:00 janina: Also want to bring up the need to test with marked up, time stamped alternative media conte4nt
15:43:03 LeifHSilli has joined #html-a11y
15:43:09 s/4//
15:43:13 agenda?
15:43:22