See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 06 September 2012
<scribe> scribe: MichaelC
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
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
ms: Janina will chair next two meetings
scribe?
<Stevef> I will be speaking in berlin with mike next tuesday !
<rubys> I just scrolled back and reviewed the minutes. Very good meeting.
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]