HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference -- 29 Mar 2012

<trackbot> Date: 29 March 2012

<MikeSmith> member:LeifHSilli, ready

<richardschwerdtfe> it is still saying 2119 is restricted

ditto

<MikeSmith> MichaelC, any clues about what we should do?

<richardschwerdtfe> so, I guess no meeting today

<MikeSmith> yeah

<richardschwerdtfe> how about providing the new code?

<MikeSmith> let's do that if we can

I can monitor 2119 on the side at 11

Let's do another code for today

<richardschwerdtfe> how about Morse

<richardschwerdtfe> ?

Too terse

<MichaelC> Code is 9248 for today

<MikeSmith> MichaelC, can you e-mail the list with that code?

<LeifHSilli> I'm in - Leif

<scribe> scribe: janina

Canvas Status

clarify current state of canvas API spec w.r.t revert request

ms: All changes back to March 7 are backed out
... WHAT 7023 is backed out

<MikeSmith> http://dev.w3.org/html5/2dcontext/

rs: What's the way forward here?

ms: Chairs are actively discussing that

rs: Have a suggestion ...
... We have two major vendor suggestions
... Microsoft has one approach
... Hickson (others) have intro'd an approach that is also workable
... If we actually got a CP from Hickson, it might help move forward
... The problem is that editor will stop working on this for some time, and we'll just drift
... But if we get his CP we can tweak and move forward

ms: Agree we should look for a way to avoid forking

rs: Also, if he submits a CP he explains why he does certain things, and that would be very helpful

ms: Agree we need to figure out way forward, can't do more today though

follow up on longdesc/describedat discussion from last week

ms: Noting the describedat proposal and discussion of it

<JF> +Q

ms: Seems clear regardless of what happens with describedat it seems it's not in a HTML 5 rec timeline
... So doesn't affect the I30 reopen request

jf: There's a larger issue here of a flurry of activity that seems to discourage progress because we don't have i30 resolution

<paulc> What is the passcode for the call?

Paul: 9248 for today

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

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
... Therefore recommend move forward on i30 so we can reinstate longdesc

jf: Exactly, we can predicate on what might happen in a year or two

rs: Now working with browser mfgs to spec describedat, this will take some time
... This will get things in, but probably not in time for HTML 5
... If there's another cycle through Last Call, perhaps, but not on the current timetable
... Believe the WG is saying longdesc needs a replacement for better uptake, and I agree
... But meantime, we cannot simply shoot longdesc out of the water
... We can't say "obsolete but conforming" right now either, because we don't have a replacement to point to

rms: So we need a TF consensus on what to say to the chairs and the wg

ms: Want to ask if anyone objects to that?

<JF> +Q

<MikeSmith> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/InstateLongdesc

jf: Mike, I think your suggestion has broad support
... What kind of unambiguous statement do the chairs want

<paulc> I am on IRC and on the call.

<MikeSmith> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012Mar/0389.html

Janina to establish that describedat is not being pursued with a

completion that would make it relevant in an HTML5 timeframe.

This is from an email from Sam

jb: This is from a coordination discussion

<MikeSmith> paulc, ?

<paulc> "Chairs would like a statement from PFWG/janina as to whether ARIA 1.1 would be done within the timeframe of HTML5 for timeline"

<paulc> "Janina to establish that describedat is not being pursued with a completion that would make it relevant in an HTML5 timeframe."

janina: Reiterating we refer to the currently published timeline

Judy: I can verify this
... So, can we move to next steps here

sf: Don't disagree with longdesc as conforming, though want to restate my concerns with longdesc current and future support
... Want to say something about it's limitations

ms: Are you supporting longdesc at this time

sf: yes

<MikeSmith> ack [IPcaller]

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)

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

<richardschwerdtfe> +1

<Judy> +1

<JF> +1

rs: That's just to reinstate, not to change anything in implementation, correct?

yes

<LeifHSilli> +1 (but I wonder if we all agree about "just instate")

<cyns> can live with

<Stevef> can ive with

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)

HTML WG f2f: possible topics for HTML a11y discussion

ms: Notes that HTML F2F scheduled for first week in May in SF Bay Area
... Hoping we can get some a11y agenda in, and discussion with developers
... My candidate would be canvas proposals, esp Hickson's recent changes
... Then also Microsoft's alternative proposals
... So, implementers particularly hope for Microsoft, Google, and Mozilla
... If we had some a11y implementers it would be really helpful

cs: First week of may in the bay area?

ms: yes

cs: Do we know which particular days the TF would be meeting

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

cs: Happy to ask Frank to come if we can be specific,

ms: Not saying a separate meeting of TF, but getting this an agendum on the WG meeting

cs: So, if we can set a particular time, and not wait for unconference, that would help

<paulc> F2F notice: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Mar/0011.html

jb: It seens December reverts caused disruption on canvas accessibility developments, and the most recent ones as well, so wondering if we can make progress before the F2F?
... Or is it sufficient to wait until then?
... Also want to register dismay that we're getting changes out of process, without CP's
... Objecting that editor can make changes without following process and thus disrupt the work of others
... So wonder whether discussion in May at the F2F is sufficient soon for clarity--to clear up the confusion caused by recent reverts

rs: I have all of IBM's data analytics business waiting on this to be resolved
... We have nothing that is in the spec to give us location information that we need
... We're also going to need this in SVG

<paulc> See http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/issue-status.html#ISSUE-201

rs: I would like the Chairs to ask the Editor to bring his proposal in via WG process, with a CP
... It seems flash is going away in the industry as a rendering platform

<paulc> Ted O'Connor has offered to provide a CP based on the approach that Ian is proposing.

rs: Canvas could take it's place, but we're not ready and we need it to happen

pc: Ted O'Conner has offered to do that actual CP
... I believe the date agreed for it is April 11

rs: Will it include path and addHitRegion?

pc: Don't know

cs: So, if we're expecting a CP mid April, early May is an excellent time for a discussion on it

rs: So, I'll communicate my concernes to Ted

jf: Other topics we might cover--we still have need to attach non-timestamped text to media

ms: Suggest you send email suggesting and summarizing this

janina: Suggest discussing in Text Subteam first?

judy: Agree that discussing details and coming forward with proposals has been working for us

rs: I wouldn't say we have nothing --
... If visible on page, you can use DescribedBy
... If only a string you can hide it as well

jf: Like to get clarity around what we need to do
... There's nothing in the spec at this point

rs: Do chairs support authoring gudiance in the spec itself?

pc: Think this is the wrong question, though will point out Sam has previously said no to this
... But, it's not what the chairs believe but what the wg believes
... Sam's rason was that this kind of material tends to be controversial

rs: So just trying to save cycles for us

ms: Want to get back to F2F
... Want to ask those who have a11y implementer contacts, to get commitments to attend
... What about Zerkov from Irkutsk?
... Could someone sponsor him? I think it would be useful to get him if we can.
... Or David Boltor?

rs: I can ask, don't have their budget!

ms: Also the Chrome team and we're meeting near Google's headquarters

rs: I can ask

ms: Appreciate that very much
... Also would be good someone from Apple, perhaps James Craig? Do we know who's doing implementation for webkit?
... I'll talk with Ted about Apple/Webkit

janina: Also want to bring up the need to test with marked up, time stamped alternative media content

Issue 204 - what to do? http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/204

jf: I've submitted a CP and have comments back yesterday .. I have a concern that what's being asked isn't really clear
... I tried to respond based on my understanding of what can and can't happen with ARIA
... Want to surface this because a deadline on this is approaching quickly

<paulc> ISSUE-204 CP review: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Mar/0766.html

<paulc> Note the following from 0766.html message:

<paulc> "Unless this flaw is corrected by April 18th, the chairs will not accept the ARIA_CORTHCWSR proposal, and will instead proceed to a call for consensus on the AllowAriaReferHidden proposal."

rs: I don't want other WGs specifying how ARIA is to be processed, I chair ARIA work in PF

pc: Unless concerns with CPs are not fixed, the existing one proposal would move by consensus
... I disagree with Janina, the chairs will say 204 is decided if not properly rebutted
... Earlier people in this meeting were lamenting that Hickson hasn't followed process and put in a CP.
... Same for 204, put a valid CP on the table

rs: Do we need a zero change CP?

jb: Why do you need a CP to not affect another WG's spec?

pc: You need a zero CP here, and agreement in the TF what the arguments are
... If it's simply that 204 is out of scope for the WG, the argument needs to be made more elegantly

<LeifHSilli> I'm wildly +1-ing PaulC!

pc: In our coordination with Judy and Janina we promissed early feedback in order to keep the timeline moving forward expeditiously

jf: I just don't have the cycles to correct grammar
... If the TF believes we need a different proposal, I would ask someone else could take that up

jb: Maybe even ...

rs: I'm so upset at the level of time involved -- it's like saying we'll change the processing rules of CSS if no one objects -- that's just insane

jb: I hear the concern and the upset, and we do have W3C process here, but this is unfortunately the path we need to take at this point

sf: I'll do it

<paulc> I need to drop off to get ready to Chair the WG meeting.

Subteam Reports: Text; ARIA Mappings; Canvas; Bug Triage; Media;

jb: Text Subteam report -- good meeting on Tuesday 27th
... Want to remind we meet at 1PM Boston Tuesdays
... Reported on coordinatin mtg with chairs
... Discussed metaname generator, noted the responses seemd to go off topic from our understanding,
... Text will refocus
... Also noted that response time should be adjusted because Steve's questions were never responded to
... This was acknowledged
... We have an approach in mind and have begun work
... I will help framing the approach
... Also discussed describedat and longdesc and came to a consensus which was picked up here earlier on this call

ms: Any other report we should have today?
... Anyone volunteer to scribe next week? Going ... ...

Steve is first scribe, John is our fallback scribe for 5 April which will be at the regular hour

rrsagent make log public

- DRAFT -

HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

29 Mar 2012

Attendees

Contents