14:56:19 RRSAgent has joined #html-a11y 14:56:19 logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/09/06-html-a11y-irc 14:56:21 RRSAgent, make logs world 14:56:21 Zakim has joined #html-a11y 14:56:23 Zakim, this will be 2119 14:56:23 ok, trackbot; I see WAI_PFWG(HTML TF)10:00AM scheduled to start 56 minutes ago 14:56:24 Meeting: HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference 14:56:24 Date: 06 September 2012 14:59:46 WAI_PFWG(HTML TF)10:00AM has now started 14:59:48 +Cooper 15:00:39 +John_Foliot 15:01:14 Stevef has joined #html-a11y 15:01:22 David has joined #html-a11y 15:01:48 +David_MacDonald 15:01:55 JF has joined #html-a11y 15:02:00 plh has joined #html-a11y 15:02:09 +Judy 15:02:12 +Plh 15:02:16 zakim, call Mike 15:02:17 ok, MikeSmith; the call is being made 15:02:17 +Mike 15:03:11 +??P18 15:03:19 zakim, ??P18 is Janina 15:03:19 +Janina; got it 15:04:51 scribe: MichaelC 15:05:19 zakim, who's noisy 15:05:19 I don't understand 'who's noisy', David 15:05:30 zakim, who is making noise? 15:05:37 chair: Mike_Smith 15:05:41 David, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Judy (17%), Plh (5%), Mike (73%) 15:06:14 +Cynthia_Shelly 15:06:27 topic: HTML-ISSUE-30 longdesc 15:07:28 ms: this is the largest outstanding issue 15:07:40 jb: what about dependency on HTML-ISSUE-204 formal objection? 15:08:08 ms: the formal objection is outside of this forum, we're just awaiting director decision 15:08:09 richardschwerdtfe has joined #html-a11y 15:08:16 q+ 15:08:21 q? 15:08:43 jb: but because it impacts HTML-ISSUE-30, would be better to wait for that before discussing 15:08:46 +Rich 15:08:58 plh: change proposals updated? 15:09:22 jb: some discussions in progress on both HTML-ISSUE-204 and HTML-ISSUE-30 15:09:37 didn't want to do multiple calls for consensus 15:10:05 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012Aug/0285.html Minutes from last week a11y TF telcon 15:10:11 since some text on HTML-ISSUE-30 can't be finalized until decision on HTML-ISSUE-204 is available 15:10:40 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012Aug/0284.html Minutes from last week a11y TF telcon 15:10:50 did hope to get Laura's agreement on pending text 15:11:02 q? 15:11:09 ack plh 15:11:31 confirm, PLH? 15:11:40 plh: yes, though TF still should needed update 15:12:10 ms: anything further on these two issues for now? 15:12:28 jf: is there now proposal to remove all ARIA from HTML5? 15:12:31 q+ Judy 15:12:43 ack Judy 15:12:44 rs: didn't we spend last two years agreeing? 15:12:52 ms: not sure I'd interpret it that way 15:12:58 rs: lots of cycles spent 15:13:02 ms: not quite agreement 15:13:03 ack j 15:13:16 q? 15:13:31 jb: message on list about that was unfortunate 15:13:37 there is a lot of history 15:13:42 +??P0 15:14:10 zakim, +??PO is me 15:14:10 sorry, Stevef, I do not recognize a party named '+??PO' 15:14:12 logistically, offloading ARIA would slow down work done to date 15:14:17 zakim, ??P0 is Steve_Faulkner 15:14:17 +Steve_Faulkner; got it 15:14:46 whats the mute command? 15:14:57 rs: rest of the world views accessibility in HTML5 negatively 15:15:04 ms: not a productive comment 15:15:15 +Q 15:15:23 anything actionable? 15:15:50 rs: been working with W3C for a long time 15:15:54 ms: lots of people have 15:15:58 q? 15:16:28 rs: I care about W3C work, but would be very negative 15:17:16 +Judy.a 15:17:20 plh: note none of the HTML chairs are present to represent themselves 15:17:22 q+ 15:17:24 ack j 15:17:38 jf: was Sam's note personal or on behalf of the three chairs? 15:17:41 plh: the three 15:17:50 q? 15:18:13 jf: then I share Rich's frustration 15:18:49 rs: what actionable could we do? 15:18:50 q+ 15:18:58 q? 15:19:03 ms: venting in the calls is not it 15:19:22 q? 15:19:41 q+ Judy 15:20:04 ack Stevef 15:20:16 i proposed a change to teds text https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18744 15:20:28 jb: asks MS to recuse as chair 15:20:50 -Steve_Faulkner 15:21:10 +??P0 15:21:15 sf: see above 15:21:22 zakim, ??P0 is Steve_Faulkner 15:21:22 +Steve_Faulkner; got it 15:21:56 ms: asked MC to get PFWG review of a proposed revised wording 15:22:01 Judy has joined #html-a11y 15:22:06 q? 15:22:13 -Judy 15:22:34 +Q 15:22:43 q+ 15:23:14 jb: why do this when Formal Objection in process? 15:23:20 q? 15:23:27 ms: understood revised wording from James might help 15:23:40 rs: open to new wording, need to review how it would work 15:23:58 ms: would like to find agreement without needing to finalize Formal Objection 15:24:03 jb: that is already in play 15:24:09 ms: still not too late to try to find agreement 15:24:11 ack next 15:24:13 ack plh 15:24:33 ack Judy 15:24:43 i agree with mike that we should try to reach consensus without formal objection 15:25:27 jb: procedural problem with sending to PFWG staff contact without confirmation of receipt and not copying PFWG chair 15:25:33 aq? 15:25:35 q? 15:25:40 q+ 15:26:00 ack JF 15:26:23 jf: responded to bug 18745 15:26:31 but no reaction yet 15:26:35 q? 15:26:57 seems to be "fast and loose" with assistive technology expectations 15:27:28 concern that you can't have invisible content not accessible to keyboard users 15:27:40 addressing that would lead me to be able to drop my formal objection 15:28:08 ms: from whom are you looking for action? 15:28:25 q? 15:28:35 jf: HTML chairs 15:28:55 they looked at least amount of objection, not technically problematic objections 15:29:04 we were so close to consensus earlier this summer 15:29:32 subsequent decision has broken that 15:29:33 ack richardschwerdtfe 15:29:43 Questions unanswered: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18745 15:29:57 rs: talked with JamesC yesterday 15:30:26 my reasons for formal objection: 15:30:37 q+ 15:30:40 authors using ARIA to refer to hidden content 15:30:44 they intend that to be hidden 15:31:10 like a tab that controls a hidden tabpanel 15:31:21 it's loose about how the semantics would be exposed 15:31:32 Maciej's proposal is to render that 15:31:44 but that counters author expectation 15:32:04 this sort of thing causes problems in tools we work on like SocialMail 15:32:23 and counters UI design intent 15:32:50 JamesC suggested that in the future there should be ability to reference content sequestered in an iframe or separate document 15:32:59 +Q to say that without rendering, you cannot show tab focus of hyperlinks, without showing focus of hyperlinks it contravenes WCAG. 15:33:03 and show the DOM tree of the target of the reference 15:33:06 this isn't fully vetted 15:33:10 but is a future goal 15:33:18 from them 15:33:36 so I want to allow for this, but not break author's expectations now 15:34:08 also, note browsers don't expose hidden content to AT 15:34:11 pollutes the UI 15:34:25 and performance hit for browser 15:34:34 has to go through and expose stuff that's not being rendered 15:34:54 the ARIA relationship primarily affected is aria-describedby 15:35:27 q- later 15:35:28 propose we say something like "in the future, user agents my have the ability to expose semantics of hidden descriptions" and encourage providing those semantics 15:35:41 but current wording is too loos 15:35:43 s/loos/loose/ 15:36:04 ms: that's the best summary of the points of disagreement I've heard 15:36:11 that's what we needed to hear 15:36:14 q+ 15:36:14 q? 15:36:18 ack j 15:36:18 JF, you wanted to say that without rendering, you cannot show tab focus of hyperlinks, without showing focus of hyperlinks it contravenes WCAG. 15:36:23 ack janina 15:37:15 js: question is who's in charge of when text becomes visible 15:38:02 user requirements may be incompatible with author intent 15:38:18 JF+ 15:38:49 when that's not clear, we have a problem 15:38:58 it would be OK for HTML to have an attribute to solve this problem 15:39:17 but not to shoehorn the use case into an (ARIA) attribute intended for other uses 15:39:23 ms: that's also a helpful input 15:39:35 q? 15:40:27 jf: my part of this is that if you don't have tab-focusable content rendered, it contravenes WCAG 15:40:50 which is a widely referenced set of requirements 15:41:12 ms: think some people may not understand these dependencies 15:41:40 jf: we've been trying to explain all this, how else can we explain it? 15:42:06 q+ 15:42:08 http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/navigation-mechanisms-focus-visible.html 15:42:13 ms: let's not focus on communication problems of the past, let's set a path forward 15:42:15 ack plh 15:42:16 ack plh 15:42:26 q+ 15:42:40 plh: it's clear that people here don't want to remove ARIA from HTML 15:42:51 that's an important message to the chairs 15:42:56 q? 15:43:00 hope Rich's explanation was well scribed 15:43:12 rs: was it clear? 15:43:29 jb: yes, though it wasn't new 15:43:43 +1 to Judy's comment that all of the information surfacing today has been said multiple times 15:44:00 there is a lot of documentation around all this stuff 15:44:32 am worried about fundamental communication flaw 15:44:38 formal objection is nearing completion 15:44:42 ack d 15:44:43 q? 15:44:43 ack David 15:44:45 q+ 15:45:08 q? 15:45:37 ack richardschwerdtfe 15:45:49 dmd: worried about a statement about future plans, could be like a WCAG 1 "until user agents..." clause which were so problematic 15:46:12 q? 15:46:41 rs: willing to work on wording that would address these concerns 15:46:46 ms: would be great 15:47:10 work with James at least, Ted and he seem in sync with each other 15:47:20 rs: will start on it, though out for 2 weeks 15:47:36 also reiterate that removing ARIA from the HTML spec isn't the solution 15:47:45 ms: pretty much everyone here agrees on that 15:47:58 ack JF 15:48:03 ack Judy 15:48:34 agenda? 15:48:58 q? 15:49:44 rs: asks SteveF to help with crafting text as change proposal 15:49:46 sf: ok 15:50:13 topic: Status of alt guidance 15:51:02 jb: a number of people [text team?] have been working on details requested by HTML chairs 15:51:08 have compiled lists of buggy guidance 15:51:32 presented some stuff a while ago 15:51:40 --> http://www.davidmacd.com/WCAG/WAI/buggy.html Alt Guidance and Alt text in the HTML5 Document 15:51:43 requested to us that we clean it up 15:51:45 RRSAgent, make minutes 15:51:45 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/09/06-html-a11y-minutes.html MikeSmith 15:51:47 q+ 15:51:47 working on thta 15:51:53 q? 15:51:54 s/thta/that/ 15:52:09 wrt buggy guidance on how to do alt 15:52:24 some actions on chairs were not completed 15:52:35 to remove stuff from core spec 15:52:55 hopefully this can be resolved by chairs and editors 15:53:01 since at the moment there is conflicting guidance 15:53:18 once that's cleaned up, want to continue discussion of housing the alt text guidance in the WCAG WG 15:53:33 this is the sort of stuff that would normally be done there 15:53:51 immediate status is that David and I will meet soon to sort out remaining details 15:53:55 then take to HTML chairs 15:54:14 ack plh 15:54:17 q? 15:54:17 and follow up with editors or WG decision process as appropriate 15:54:35 plh: 2 parts 15:54:41 first part is to remove some references 15:54:54 jb: yes, not appropriate to provide guidance of that sort in the core HTML spec 15:55:05 problem for maintenance, and invites other problems 15:55:41 q+ 15:55:46 ms: chair position is that if you have problems with spec text, file individual bugs 15:55:59 though we see that the issue is with the entire section 15:56:13 not appropriate to file super fine-grained bugs in this case 15:56:19 q+ to clarify 15:56:27 just need to say the entire section is not appropriate for inclusion in the spec 15:56:41 q? 15:56:43 q+ 15:56:44 ack Judy 15:56:44 Judy, you wanted to clarify 15:56:49 jb: the chairs are aware of this 15:57:06 requesting detailed evidence is towards that goal 15:57:30 -Cynthia_Shelly 15:57:50 we need a unified position that we don't want to waste time discussing individual problem areas 15:57:57 just reference the alternative canonical guidance 15:58:25 jb: this is on David's and my plate 15:58:39 ack plh 15:58:46 ms: ok, PLH and I need to be clear on this as well with chairs 15:58:58 plh: what about the point on moving this to WCAG? 15:59:18 jb: there needs to be a sequence of events 15:59:22 first pull the bad guidance 15:59:36 then make a decision about the external advisory document 16:00:09 ms: agree with that sequence 16:00:28 as editor of the said doc I agree with the sequence 16:00:44 topic: Next meeting 16:00:52 ms: Janina will chair next two meetings 16:00:58 scribe? 16:01:02 -Steve_Faulkner 16:01:24 I will be speaking in berlin with mike next tuesday ! 16:01:30 -John_Foliot 16:01:31 -Plh 16:01:31 -David_MacDonald 16:01:31 I just scrolled back and reviewed the minutes. Very good meeting. 16:01:32 -Mike 16:01:32 -Cooper 16:01:34 -Rich 16:01:41 -Janina 16:01:45 s/agreement on pending text/agreement on how to handle the pending text/ 16:02:23 -Judy.a 16:02:25 WAI_PFWG(HTML TF)10:00AM has ended 16:02:25 Attendees were Cooper, John_Foliot, David_MacDonald, Judy, Plh, Mike, Janina, Cynthia_Shelly, Rich, Steve_Faulkner 16:02:40 rrsagent, make minutes 16:02:40 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/09/06-html-a11y-minutes.html MichaelC 18:15:34 Zakim has left #html-a11y 18:16:40 MikeSmith_ has joined #html-a11y 19:19:57 davidb has joined #html-a11y 19:43:47 rubys has left #html-a11y 19:55:38 davidb has joined #html-a11y 19:57:12 MichaelC has joined #html-a11y 20:02:34 David has left #html-a11y 21:14:20 Stevef has joined #html-a11y 21:28:18 MichaelC_ has joined #html-a11y 23:31:59 MichaelC has joined #html-a11y