14:51:59 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #html-a11y
14:51:59 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/08/02-html-a11y-irc
14:52:01 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
14:52:01 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #html-a11y
14:52:03 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 2119
14:52:03 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see WAI_PFWG(HTML TF)10:00AM scheduled to start 52 minutes ago
14:52:04 <trackbot> Meeting: HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference
14:52:04 <trackbot> Date: 02 August 2012
14:52:09 <MikeSmith> agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012Aug/0029.html
14:52:17 <MikeSmith> chair: MikeSmith 
14:57:13 <JF> JF has joined #html-a11y
14:58:46 <Zakim> WAI_PFWG(HTML TF)10:00AM has now started
14:58:53 <Zakim> +John_Foliot
15:01:07 <MikeSmith> Zakim, call Mike
15:01:07 <Zakim> ok, MikeSmith; the call is being made
15:01:08 <Zakim> +Mike
15:02:00 <Zakim> +??P21
15:02:09 <janina> zakim, ??P21 is Janina
15:02:09 <Zakim> +Janina; got it
15:02:18 <janina> zakim, who's here?
15:02:18 <Zakim> On the phone I see John_Foliot, Mike, Janina
15:02:19 <Zakim> On IRC I see JF, Zakim, RRSAgent, Judy, janina, MichaelC, MikeSmith, [tm], trackbot
15:02:21 <Zakim> +Judy
15:03:15 <MikeSmith> agenda+	Issue-201 (canvas hit testing), Status
15:03:16 <MikeSmith> agenda+	Issue-204 (ARIA and hidden elements), Test Page and WBS Responses
15:03:17 <MikeSmith> agenda+	Issue-30  (longdesc), WBS Preparation & Timelines
15:03:18 <MikeSmith> agenda+	Issue-206 (alt exemption for generators), developments
15:04:17 <janina> scribe: janina
15:04:20 <richardschwerdtfe> richardschwerdtfe has joined #html-a11y
15:04:36 <paulc> paulc has joined #html-a11y
15:04:52 <Zakim> +Rich
15:05:29 <Zakim> +??P27
15:05:46 <janina> zakim, take up item 1
15:05:49 <MikeSmith> paulc, you dialing in?
15:05:51 <Zakim> agendum 1. "Issue-201 (canvas hit testing), Status" taken up [from MikeSmith]
15:06:27 <Zakim> +Judy.a
15:06:29 <Zakim> -Judy
15:08:37 <janina> rich: Haven't seen a response from Ted or Frank
15:08:55 <janina> mike: Nothing on WG list as of overnight either
15:09:42 <janina> rich: Unsure why some of the prohibitions are there, but they're serious and suspect they're unintentional
15:10:01 <janina> mike: Anything else we could do in parallel?
15:10:10 <janina> rich: We're waiting for agreement on line line of text
15:10:24 <janina> s/line/one/
15:10:45 <janina> rich: Also haven't heard from Frank
15:10:59 <janina> zakim, next topic
15:10:59 <Zakim> I don't understand 'next topic', janina
15:11:09 <janina> zakim, next item
15:11:09 <Zakim> agendum 2. "Issue-204 (ARIA and hidden elements), Test Page and WBS Responses" taken up [from MikeSmith]
15:11:20 <MikeSmith> MikeSmith has left #html-a11y
15:11:23 <janina> mike: John, you posted a test page? More to say?
15:11:37 <Mike5> Mike5 has joined #html-a11y
15:12:18 <janina> john: Supposedly we can expose structure in hidden div
15:12:35 <janina> john: Understand this should work in FF14, but I wasn't able to confirm that
15:12:44 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:13:05 <Stevef> Stevef has joined #html-a11y
15:13:19 <Mike5> -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012Aug/0009.html Test page: structured content in hidden divs
15:13:49 <janina> rich: What do you mean "can be done in FF?"
15:13:56 <janina> john: That FF will expose the content
15:13:57 <Mike5> -> http://john.foliot.ca/html5/w3c/hidden.html Testing Structured content in @hidden container, etc.
15:14:13 <janina> rich: By design FF doesn't map hidden content to a11y api
15:14:48 <janina> rich: We tried this strategy years ago in Home Page Reader (HPR)
15:15:14 <janina> rich: Problem is that you're now asking AT to function as the browser
15:15:25 <JF> Q+
15:15:33 <Mike5> Zakim, who's noisy?
15:15:34 <janina> rich: Rather, you want the browser to expose the content in such a way that the AT can walk the struct
15:15:44 <Zakim> Mike5, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: [IPcaller] (55%), Rich (52%)
15:15:46 <Mike5> ack janina 
15:15:50 <Mike5> ack JF
15:16:20 <janina> john: Point of test page is to illustrate approach of one of the CPs doesn't work
15:16:21 <Mike5> Zakim, mute [IPcaller]
15:16:21 <Zakim> [IPcaller] should now be muted
15:16:33 <Mike5> Zakim, unmute [IPcaller]
15:16:33 <Zakim> [IPcaller] should no longer be muted
15:16:47 <Zakim> +[Microsoft]
15:16:59 <paulc> zakim, [Microsoft] has paulc
15:16:59 <Zakim> +paulc; got it
15:17:04 <Stevef> q+
15:17:09 <janina> john: V4 disallows for that reason, and that the sighted kybd user is lost with unfocussed tab stops
15:17:31 <Judy> q+
15:17:48 <JF> Q+
15:17:50 <Mike5> ack Stevef 
15:18:42 <janina> steve: I do see the text portion from your test page, not sure whether or not it announces it
15:18:57 <janina> rich: Yes, it's stringified
15:19:18 <janina> rich: But the struct is not exposed to AT
15:19:35 <janina> steve: only text content at this time is exposed
15:20:21 <janina> john: My example, n response partly to Simon, is the nested lists, headings, URIs, etc.
15:20:28 <Mike5> ack Judy
15:20:51 <richardschwerdtfe> q+
15:21:09 <JF> +1 to losing tab focus comment by Judy
15:21:41 <janina> judy: Want to focus back on the next steps re the Issue WBS, it's important to clearly identify the problems exposed via the test page in the WBS
15:22:04 <janina> judy: The disappearing cursor is one important point. We need to circulate this with a description for people who don't get it yet
15:22:07 <Mike5> q?
15:22:19 <Mike5> ack Jf
15:22:24 <Mike5> ack JF
15:22:57 <janina> john: Biggest problem is that survey closes Friday, so that all we can do is to file ...
15:23:20 <janina> judy: Yes, putting this in survey is important, but also explaining this on list so that the wider community can understand the design flaw.
15:23:33 <Mike5> ack richardschwerdtfe 
15:23:40 <janina> judy: We've been speculating this for months and people haven't understood it. Now, that we can show it, we need to make it clear.
15:24:19 <Judy> q+
15:24:26 <janina> rich: I'm concerned that people are making assertions who don't have the requisite understanding to be speaking authoratatively
15:24:45 <janina> rich: To those of us who have worked in this area for years, this is obvious.
15:24:59 <janina> mike: I think this is important pointing out in an email
15:25:43 <Zakim> + +44.117.929.aaaa
15:25:51 <Judy> agenda?
15:26:35 <janina> mike: We saw similar in Issue-205, where there were assertions on things working, but no understanding why they aren't working for the a11y user
15:27:34 <janina> mike: It's particularly bad because the H5 chairs have been making these kinds of assertions without having the technical background to understand the a11y implications of their assertions. It's happening very consistently and that's a problem.
15:27:42 <janina> s/mike/rich/
15:28:47 <Mike5> s/mike: We saw/rich: We saw/
15:28:48 <Mike5> q?
15:28:52 <Mike5> ack Judy 
15:29:28 <janina> judy: Rich, many people share that concern, but we need to get through today's agenda critically.
15:29:45 <janina> zakim, next item
15:29:45 <Zakim> agendum 3. "Issue-30  (longdesc), WBS Preparation & Timelines" taken up [from MikeSmith]
15:30:50 <janina> judy: We had suggested to the CCs some ways to move forward expiditously, 
15:31:22 <janina> judy: The q that came on list, however, was specifically whether the CPs on 30 were ready to go
15:31:55 <janina> judy: Because we're waiting on decisions on 204, and also 194, not knowing what those will be, can impact what we need to say in 30
15:32:11 <janina> judy: Laura does indicate willingness to accept a preamble in her CP
15:32:32 <LeonieWatson> LeonieWatson has joined #html-a11y
15:32:58 <janina> judy: So, needing to see the decisions, possibly taking this through PF, and certainly taking it through the TF again, makes the 17th unworkable, especially as August is a heavy vacation month
15:33:38 <janina> judy: Clearly everyone inows I30 is one of the key issues we want to get back to, but need to do it properly
15:33:57 <Mike5> Zakim, who's noisy?
15:34:07 <Zakim> Mike5, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Judy.a (49%), Janina (74%), Rich (33%)
15:34:14 <Mike5> Zakim, who's noisy?
15:34:27 <Zakim> Mike5, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Judy.a (100%)
15:34:43 <Mike5> q?
15:34:44 <janina> judy: Particurly critical is our need to see the decisions, and address any assertions in them appropriately with PF and TF participation.
15:35:10 <janina> judy: So, this is partially a Text Subteam report as we discussed this 
15:35:20 <janina> mike: So, the only action here is that the chairs give more time
15:35:34 <janina> judy: In terms of coordination, yes
15:35:37 <JF> Q+
15:36:13 <janina> judy: There are several actions in process now on this from the Text Subteam
15:36:24 <Mike5> ack janina 
15:36:27 <Mike5> ack jF
15:36:56 <janina> john: CCs did indicate on list, first asking whether more time was needed, and Paul indicating up to a month as I read it
15:37:18 <paulc> Please respond to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012Aug/0003.html 
15:38:33 <janina> judy: An appropriate venue for discussing this kind of topic, agreed in Bilbao, would be a coordination call
15:38:43 <janina> paul: We want this done in public
15:39:16 <janina> Paul: I offered coordination mtg Tuesday and haven't heard
15:39:27 <janina> judy: You'll probably hear us agreeing Tuesday
15:39:43 <janina> mike: Judy, do you want this up on the WG call?
15:39:53 <janina> judy: Can continue to assert what we've said here if desired
15:40:13 <Mike5> q?
15:40:26 <janina> judy: e.g. if CCs can announce a date for decision on 204, would be helpful for us to designate a date when we would be ready
15:42:43 <JF> Q+
15:42:50 <Judy> q+
15:42:57 <Mike5> ack JF 
15:43:09 <janina> janina: Asking whether people on this call agree with this progression?
15:43:19 <janina> mike: Can't say myself as I'm not up to speed on these dependencies
15:43:53 <janina> john: Yes, the entire question of approach in 30 needs to be informed by the decision on 204.
15:44:30 <Mike5> ack Judy 
15:44:33 <janina> jf: Don't think this should be shocking or surprising
15:45:25 <janina> judy: Perhaps another way to say it is to appropriately respond to continuing misunderstandings of the dependencies, which may still be present in a 204 decision.
15:47:00 <janina> mike: Seems people actively working on this feel quite strongly on this.
15:47:06 <janina> janina: Yes, possible exception of Laura
15:47:32 <janina> zakim, next item
15:47:32 <Zakim> agendum 4. "Issue-206 (alt exemption for generators), developments" taken up [from MikeSmith]
15:47:56 <janina> mike: a ton of on list discussion the last 24 hours or so
15:48:30 <janina> mike: reviewing history of meta generator ...
15:48:36 <Judy> zakim, who's making noise?
15:48:47 <Zakim> Judy, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: John_Foliot (24%), [IPcaller] (17%), [Microsoft] (4%)
15:48:53 <janina> mike: CP asked for 31c decision to be reissued and it was as Issue-206
15:49:10 <janina> mike: CP said remove the meta generator exemption
15:49:19 <Judy> zakim, who's on the phone?
15:49:19 <Zakim> On the phone I see John_Foliot, Mike, Janina, Rich, Michael_Cooper, Judy.a, [IPcaller], [Microsoft], +44.117.929.aaaa (muted)
15:49:21 <Zakim> [Microsoft] has paulc
15:49:33 <janina> mike: Seems no one is advocating for the meta generator any longer
15:49:44 <Judy> zakim, +44 is Leonie
15:49:44 <Zakim> +Leonie; got it
15:49:57 <Zakim> -Leonie
15:50:00 <janina> mike: I can also say Hickson is also prepared to remove it from the WHAT spec
15:50:03 <Judy> zakim, [IPcaller] is Steve
15:50:03 <Zakim> +Steve; got it
15:50:22 <Judy> zakim, who's making noise?
15:50:32 <Zakim> Judy, listening for 10 seconds I could not identify any sounds
15:50:49 <Stevef> q+
15:51:14 <Zakim> +Leonie
15:51:35 <janina> mike: my goal is to make our validator as useful as we can, and to keep it and v.new in sync as well
15:52:04 <Mike5> zakim, who's noisy?
15:52:14 <Zakim> Mike5, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: John_Foliot (19%), Steve (69%), Janina (26%), Mike (60%)
15:53:34 <Mike5> ack Stevef 
15:53:35 <janina> mike: So, we have an additional CP now to identify via attrib images put in by auto tool
15:53:38 <Judy> q+
15:54:03 <janina> steve: q about keeping validators in sync? Following what?
15:54:10 <janina> mike: No, we follow our spec
15:54:27 <janina> q+
15:54:35 <JF> Q+
15:54:42 <Mike5> ack Judy 
15:55:02 <Mike5> q?
15:55:28 <janina> judy: Been reading, much interesting discussion on thread, initially disappointed that user requirements not addressed in the early discussion, but that seems to have changed now
15:56:12 <janina> judy: One discussion point should be how tightly constrained the set that this tag would apply to
15:56:26 <janina> judy: Think Laura's proposal offers an interesting distinction here
15:57:28 <Stevef> q+
15:57:45 <Judy> q?
15:57:54 <Mike5> ack janina
15:59:25 <Mike5> ack JF 
15:59:31 <janina> janina: Yes, wanted to suggest discussing why spec rather than validator filter is a good question
15:59:42 <janina> janina: Also like Mike's suggest default warning msg
16:00:08 <janina> john: Concerned that validating a page with these errors is improper
16:00:24 <janina> john: Haven't caught up with the overnight thread, though
16:00:51 <janina> john: We also need to do something for the user that needs to deal with the results of missing alt
16:00:56 <Mike5> ack Stevef 
16:01:12 <janina> steve: I think this is potentially a good thing for the end user
16:01:19 <LeonieWatson> +1 to JF's worry that the UX is getting lost
16:02:01 <janina> steve: I spend time look at real world apps; see a lot of no alt and no indication of what the image is about, so users don't know there's something tthere with value they're missing
16:02:28 <Zakim> -[Microsoft]
16:03:00 <janina> steve: being told there's an image without alt is better than not knowing there's an image there at all
16:04:25 <janina> mike: I expect we'll have this agendum again next week.
16:04:34 <janina> mike: Don't think we have a deadline at this point
16:04:54 <janina> john: There's an Aug 8 deadline for counter CPs, and expect that bar has been met
16:05:12 <Mike5> q?
16:05:23 <janina> mike: Noting we're over the hour, anything else for today?
16:05:26 <Zakim> -Leonie
16:05:28 <Zakim> -Judy.a
16:05:29 <Zakim> -Steve
16:05:29 <Zakim> -John_Foliot
16:05:30 <Zakim> -Mike
16:05:30 <Zakim> -Michael_Cooper
16:05:32 <janina> mike: OK. We're adjourned until next week!
16:05:36 <janina> zakim, bye
16:05:36 <Zakim> Zakim has left #html-a11y
16:05:38 <Zakim> leaving.  As of this point the attendees were John_Foliot, Mike, Janina, Judy, Rich, Michael_Cooper, paulc, +44.117.929.aaaa, Leonie, Steve
16:05:41 <janina> rrsagent, make log public
16:05:46 <janina> rrsagent, make minutes
16:05:46 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/08/02-html-a11y-minutes.html janina
16:21:28 <laura> laura has joined #html-a11y
16:41:24 <laura> laura has left #html-a11y