HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

06 Sep 2012

See also: IRC log


Cooper, John_Foliot, David_MacDonald, Judy, Plh, Mike, Janina, Cynthia_Shelly, Rich, Steve_Faulkner


<trackbot> Date: 06 September 2012

<scribe> scribe: MichaelC

HTML-ISSUE-30 longdesc

ms: this is the largest outstanding issue

jb: what about dependency on HTML-ISSUE-204 formal objection?

ms: the formal objection is outside of this forum, we're just awaiting director decision

jb: but because it impacts HTML-ISSUE-30, would be better to wait for that before discussing

plh: change proposals updated?

jb: some discussions in progress on both HTML-ISSUE-204 and HTML-ISSUE-30

didn't want to do multiple calls for consensus

<MikeSmith> Minutes from last week a11y TF telcon

since some text on HTML-ISSUE-30 can't be finalized until decision on HTML-ISSUE-204 is available

<MikeSmith> Minutes from last week a11y TF telcon

did hope to get Laura's agreement on how to handle the pending text

confirm, PLH?

plh: yes, though TF still should needed update

ms: anything further on these two issues for now?

jf: is there now proposal to remove all ARIA from HTML5?

rs: didn't we spend last two years agreeing?

ms: not sure I'd interpret it that way

rs: lots of cycles spent

ms: not quite agreement

jb: message on list about that was unfortunate

there is a lot of history

logistically, offloading ARIA would slow down work done to date

<Stevef> whats the mute command?

rs: rest of the world views accessibility in HTML5 negatively

ms: not a productive comment

<JF> +Q

anything actionable?

rs: been working with W3C for a long time

ms: lots of people have

rs: I care about W3C work, but would be very negative

plh: note none of the HTML chairs are present to represent themselves

jf: was Sam's note personal or on behalf of the three chairs?

plh: the three

jf: then I share Rich's frustration

rs: what actionable could we do?

ms: venting in the calls is not it

<Stevef> i proposed a change to teds text https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18744

jb: asks MS to recuse as chair

sf: see above

ms: asked MC to get PFWG review of a proposed revised wording

<JF> +Q

jb: why do this when Formal Objection in process?

ms: understood revised wording from James might help

rs: open to new wording, need to review how it would work

ms: would like to find agreement without needing to finalize Formal Objection

jb: that is already in play

ms: still not too late to try to find agreement

<Stevef> i agree with mike that we should try to reach consensus without formal objection

jb: procedural problem with sending to PFWG staff contact without confirmation of receipt and not copying PFWG chair

<MikeSmith> aq?

jf: responded to bug 18745

but no reaction yet

seems to be "fast and loose" with assistive technology expectations

concern that you can't have invisible content not accessible to keyboard users

addressing that would lead me to be able to drop my formal objection

ms: from whom are you looking for action?

jf: HTML chairs

they looked at least amount of objection, not technically problematic objections

we were so close to consensus earlier this summer

subsequent decision has broken that

<JF> Questions unanswered: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18745

rs: talked with JamesC yesterday

my reasons for formal objection:

authors using ARIA to refer to hidden content

they intend that to be hidden

like a tab that controls a hidden tabpanel

it's loose about how the semantics would be exposed

Maciej's proposal is to render that

but that counters author expectation

this sort of thing causes problems in tools we work on like SocialMail

and counters UI design intent

JamesC suggested that in the future there should be ability to reference content sequestered in an iframe or separate document

<JF> +Q to say that without rendering, you cannot show tab focus of hyperlinks, without showing focus of hyperlinks it contravenes WCAG.

and show the DOM tree of the target of the reference

this isn't fully vetted

but is a future goal

from them

so I want to allow for this, but not break author's expectations now

also, note browsers don't expose hidden content to AT

pollutes the UI

and performance hit for browser

has to go through and expose stuff that's not being rendered

the ARIA relationship primarily affected is aria-describedby

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

but current wording is too loose

ms: that's the best summary of the points of disagreement I've heard

that's what we needed to hear

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to say that without rendering, you cannot show tab focus of hyperlinks, without showing focus of hyperlinks it contravenes WCAG.

js: question is who's in charge of when text becomes visible

user requirements may be incompatible with author intent

<MikeSmith> JF+

when that's not clear, we have a problem

it would be OK for HTML to have an attribute to solve this problem

but not to shoehorn the use case into an (ARIA) attribute intended for other uses

ms: that's also a helpful input

jf: my part of this is that if you don't have tab-focusable content rendered, it contravenes WCAG

which is a widely referenced set of requirements

ms: think some people may not understand these dependencies

jf: we've been trying to explain all this, how else can we explain it?

<David> http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/navigation-mechanisms-focus-visible.html

ms: let's not focus on communication problems of the past, let's set a path forward

plh: it's clear that people here don't want to remove ARIA from HTML

that's an important message to the chairs

hope Rich's explanation was well scribed

rs: was it clear?

jb: yes, though it wasn't new

<JF> +1 to Judy's comment that all of the information surfacing today has been said multiple times

there is a lot of documentation around all this stuff

am worried about fundamental communication flaw

formal objection is nearing completion

dmd: worried about a statement about future plans, could be like a WCAG 1 "until user agents..." clause which were so problematic

rs: willing to work on wording that would address these concerns

ms: would be great

work with James at least, Ted and he seem in sync with each other

rs: will start on it, though out for 2 weeks

also reiterate that removing ARIA from the HTML spec isn't the solution

ms: pretty much everyone here agrees on that

rs: asks SteveF to help with crafting text as change proposal

sf: ok

Status of alt guidance

jb: a number of people [text team?] have been working on details requested by HTML chairs

have compiled lists of buggy guidance

presented some stuff a while ago

<plh> --> http://www.davidmacd.com/WCAG/WAI/buggy.html Alt Guidance and Alt text in the HTML5 Document

requested to us that we clean it up

working on that

wrt buggy guidance on how to do alt

some actions on chairs were not completed

to remove stuff from core spec

hopefully this can be resolved by chairs and editors

since at the moment there is conflicting guidance

once that's cleaned up, want to continue discussion of housing the alt text guidance in the WCAG WG

this is the sort of stuff that would normally be done there

immediate status is that David and I will meet soon to sort out remaining details

then take to HTML chairs

and follow up with editors or WG decision process as appropriate

plh: 2 parts

first part is to remove some references

jb: yes, not appropriate to provide guidance of that sort in the core HTML spec

problem for maintenance, and invites other problems

ms: chair position is that if you have problems with spec text, file individual bugs

though we see that the issue is with the entire section

not appropriate to file super fine-grained bugs in this case

just need to say the entire section is not appropriate for inclusion in the spec

<Zakim> Judy, you wanted to clarify

jb: the chairs are aware of this

requesting detailed evidence is towards that goal

we need a unified position that we don't want to waste time discussing individual problem areas

just reference the alternative canonical guidance

jb: this is on David's and my plate

ms: ok, PLH and I need to be clear on this as well with chairs

plh: what about the point on moving this to WCAG?

jb: there needs to be a sequence of events

first pull the bad guidance

then make a decision about the external advisory document

ms: agree with that sequence

<Stevef> as editor of the said doc I agree with the sequence

Next meeting

ms: Janina will chair next two meetings


<Stevef> I will be speaking in berlin with mike next tuesday !

<rubys> I just scrolled back and reviewed the minutes. Very good meeting.

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.136 (CVS log)
$Date: 2012/09/06 16:02:45 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
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/loos/loose/
Succeeded: s/thta/that/
Succeeded: s/agreement on pending text/agreement on how to handle the pending text/
Found Scribe: MichaelC
Inferring ScribeNick: MichaelC
Default Present: Cooper, John_Foliot, David_MacDonald, Judy, Plh, Mike, Janina, Cynthia_Shelly, Rich, Steve_Faulkner
Present: Cooper John_Foliot David_MacDonald Judy Plh Mike Janina Cynthia_Shelly Rich Steve_Faulkner
Found Date: 06 Sep 2012
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/09/06-html-a11y-minutes.html
People with action items: 

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]