See also: IRC log
<scribe> scribe: Loretta
<Joshue108> scribenick: Loretta
JOC: I cleaned up the wiki page
for the combined sections, then split out section and
... I will update the techniques to address the current round of comments.
Loretta: have we decided whether to do joint or separate techniques/
JOC: Currently, updting both paths. Currently, I think having separate techniques would be better.
Marc: It is a lot easier to read the individual techniques. Massively long techniques can be overwhelming.
JOC: How to demonstrate the
relationships between the elements? Maybe use multiple types of
mark-up in the examples for one element type.
... Or provide some kind of overview somewhere.
Marc: This is one reason I am torn. Maybe an overview with links to the individual techniques?
JOC: Maybe make the overview with no test procedure, etc.
Marc: Maybe an overview describing what they are about, then one sample that contains everything.
<scribe> ACTION: Josh to create a new page using this model. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/04/30-html-techs-tf-minutes.html#action01]
Loretta: Michael how could we fit
this into the WCAG document structure?
... Somehow use model of 1 general technique plus one of the following...
Michael: we shouldn't keep ourselves from writing support documents and linking to them. We'll find a place to put the supporting information.
Josh will proceed with this idea.
JG: In the section example, I was curious why you use article as the container for the different sections. I thought article would be more atomic.
JOC: THe article element has 2 hats: an article (a large unit) or something that is much smaller and more granular.
JG: ARIA's definition is muchmore of a discrete unit. Do we want to promote article to have 2 different meanings in html5, even if it can?
JOC: There is a lot of confusion in general about how to use these different elements.
JG: We want WCAG to encourage the best use of the elements, rather than the possible use of the elements.
JOC: Which definition should we favor?
JG: (reading definition from HTML5 spec)
JOC: so blog post itself could be an article, but comments can also be (child) articles.
JG: reading the section element: article encouraged when you want other people to repurpose that piece of the content.
JOC: my understanding is that
article should be the parent.
... but I could be wrong as well.
JG: I agree that we should present these in the best way. How fast and loose should we play with the spec?
Loretta: I worry about spending too much time trying to specify best practice.
JOC: How do we encourage good usage? Do we just take the examples from HTML?
Loretta: this will be most painful when writing the test procedures. Do they require best practice?
JG: footer example seems odd, with only child that is a section. footer and section are both landmarks. If a landmark only contains one landmark child, it is an extra layer for navigation.
JOC: footer is a flow element in HTML5. It isn't a landmark, is it?
JG: It final outcome in HTML5 is
not clear. There may be a schism between the way things are
defined in ARIA and HTML5. footer will be a landmark in HTML5,
but not in ARIA.
... I already see article being misused even as an ARIA role.
... Now we have footer. We don't have footer in ARIA, we have complementary info.
Loretta: concerned about trying to address everything in 1.3.1 technique
JOC: But what should we show in
our examples? Maybe I should take the footer stuff out
... If it is a concern that we are generating too many landmarks, maybe we should restructure this?
JG: I worry about semantic
pollution. If everything becomes navigable, it reduces the
efficiency of using them. Too much semantics can be a
... We have the tension between how to use headers and landmarks together. Users may be familiar with headers but not landmarks.
... With HTML5's ability to affect the level of headers baeed on the mark-up structure, this may introduce more confusion.
JOC: ANother interesting discussion, maybe not for now.
JG: Looking at the example, the idea is that the footer will include the comments. THis is a typical blog structure. In the second example, we include actual comments.
JOC: The question is whether the
usage of the footer is correct? Or should I use div or
... The containing element could be a section?
Loretta: Will your proposed restructuring help with this, where we will have an overview and overview example?
JOC: I'd like to get feedback on the appropriate use of footer.
Loretta: Jon, does the versio populated with comments seem better?
JG: ANother question about the
use of labels. SHould these sections use aria-labelled by to
associate the header with the section?
... I'd be happier to use something like that.
JOC: Great idea.
... There is only one section in the current example. THere are a few articles nested .I could add aria-labelledby.
<David> scribe: David
LGR concerned about complexity... tension between simple demonstartion of technique vs... demonstrating a bunch of SC at the same time, and much more complex
Josh: let's do both, a simple example and a more complex one with WAI ARIA
LGR: 1.3.1 say that relationships that are there are explicit
Josh: without labels then it's a failure...
LGR: Really? I wouldn't agree... WAI Labels on Sections is helpful, but not a failure without it...
<Loretta> David: I'm confused why we would add a sectino when there is no UA support? THere is no accessibility currently.
<Loretta> David: we might want a technique on labels. Why include a section technique at all? We only want to include techniques that support accessibility.
<Loretta> JOC: future peoofing.
<Loretta> JOC: Want a working example but also want to demonstrate how things should be used.
<Loretta> LOretta: standards of AT support are relaxes for HTML5 techniques so we can proof the spec for missing features or support
<Loretta> David: we should focus on ARIA techniques which are more mature.
<jongund> I have to go to another call, good discusion
<Joshue108> thanks Jon
<Loretta> I think I just got kicked off...
<Loretta> Anyway, write up a complete, best practice example for the overview document. THen maybe individual techniques can contain some simpler examples, and also refer
<Loretta> to the complete example as another example, possibly with discussion of how the specific element is being used there
<Loretta> Josh, does that make sense?
<Loretta> (Of course, these things always sound good until we try to apply them. <grin>)
<Joshue108> Yup, thanks Loretta.
<Loretta> Sorry about losing the phone. I don't know what happened. See you in 4 weeks?
<Loretta> I'll miss the next 3 Mondays...
<Loretta> Good work!
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/Actio/Action/ Succeeded: s/sectino/section/ FAILED: s/peoffing/proofing/ Found Scribe: Loretta Found ScribeNick: Loretta Found Scribe: David Inferring ScribeNick: David Scribes: Loretta, David ScribeNicks: Loretta, David Default Present: Joshue, Cooper, adam_solomon, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Marc_Johlic, Jon_Gunderson, Tim, David_MacDonald Present: Joshue Cooper adam_solomon Loretta_Guarino_Reid Marc_Johlic Jon_Gunderson Tim David_MacDonald Agenda: http://www.w3.org/mid/4F97F1FB.firstname.lastname@example.org Got date from IRC log name: 30 Apr 2012 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/04/30-html-techs-tf-minutes.html People with action items: josh WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]