14:58:27 RRSAgent has joined #html-a11y
14:58:27 logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/09/13-html-a11y-irc
14:58:29 RRSAgent, make logs world
14:58:31 Zakim, this will be 2119
14:58:31 ok, trackbot; I see WAI_PFWG(HTML TF)10:00AM scheduled to start 58 minutes ago
14:58:32 Meeting: HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference
14:58:32 Date: 13 September 2012
14:59:27 janina has joined #html-a11y
14:59:38 trackbot, start meeting
14:59:41 RRSAgent, make logs world
14:59:43 Zakim, this will be 2119
14:59:43 ok, trackbot; I see WAI_PFWG(HTML TF)10:00AM scheduled to start 59 minutes ago
14:59:44 Meeting: HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference
14:59:44 Date: 13 September 2012
14:59:53 WAI_PFWG(HTML TF)10:00AM has now started
15:00:00 +??P4
15:00:03 +David_MacDonald
15:00:08 zakim, ??P4 is Janina_Sajka
15:00:08 +Janina_Sajka; got it
15:00:19 zakim, who's here?
15:00:19 On the phone I see Janina_Sajka, David_MacDonald
15:00:21 On IRC I see janina, RRSAgent, Zakim, plh, Judy, davidb, MichaelC, darobin, [tm], trackbot
15:00:36 ce Teleconference
15:00:37 Chair: Janina_Sajka
15:00:37 agenda+ Issue-204 Status and Concerns Discussion
15:00:37 agenda+ Issue-30 Status & Next Steps
15:00:37 agenda+ Issue-31B (Sec. 4.8)
15:00:39 agenda+ Issue-206 Open Discussion
15:00:40 zakim, passcode?
15:00:40 the conference code is 2119 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), plh
15:00:41 agenda+ The Task Force at the TPAC
15:00:44 agenda+ Subteam Reports: Bug Triage; Text; ARIA Mappings
15:00:46 +Cooper
15:00:46 agenda+ Other Business
15:00:49 agenda+ Actions Review http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/open
15:00:51 agenda+ Identify Scribe for the next TF teleconference http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/index.php?title=Scribe_List
15:01:02 +John_Foliot
15:01:04 +Philippe
15:01:19 scribe: MichaelC
15:01:27 JF has joined #html-a11y
15:02:00 Stevef has joined #html-a11y
15:02:15 +Judy
15:04:03 agenda+ be done/me Steve, were you planning to come on the phone?
15:04:25 zakim, drop item 10
15:04:25 agendum 10, be done/me Steve, were you planning to come on the phone?, dropped
15:04:35 janina: yes will be there soon
15:04:44 client work...
15:04:59 +Cynthia_Shelly
15:05:06 David has joined #html-a11y
15:05:39 zakim, next item
15:05:39 agendum 1. "Issue-204 Status and Concerns Discussion" taken up [from janina]
15:05:52 +[IPcaller]
15:06:12 zakim, [IPcaller] is me
15:06:12 +Stevef; got it
15:06:14 js: to recap, there was a Formal Objection
15:06:33 followed by some alternate proposals
15:06:42 chairs have agreed to incorporate one of those
15:06:48 which is in the draft now
15:06:55 will continue to refine that as needed
15:07:54 that version does not contain the substance on which PFWG objected
15:08:00 Tim has sent a note of encouragement
15:08:35 possibly in lieu of any further formal response to the objection
15:09:02 http://www.w3.org/mid/843B736C-BD48-425C-99CD-795FA08BA82C@w3.org
15:09:15 plh: this has been incorporated by editor
15:09:27 jb: yes, though has taken further suggestions that had not been vetted by the groups
15:09:55 http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/editing.html#the-hidden-attribute
15:10:02 jb: we will be reviewing the additional changes
15:10:38 js: any issues to explore based on the new language?
15:11:03 jf: consider a hyperlink in a table header that is hidden with @hidden
15:11:09 which is a real world design pattern
15:11:24 this could lead to tab-focusable element that is not visible
15:12:02 one way to address would be to declare that non-conforming and raise a validation error
15:12:26 another would be to specify that hidden content that is referenced should be exposed to user
15:12:37 q?
15:12:46 perhaps like show / hide navigation tools are done or something
15:13:17 js: language encourages accessibility APIs to add support for exposing semantic richness to assistive technologies
15:13:29 is there any limit to the kinds of semantics this would encompass?
15:13:48 i.e., would it be possible to deal with hyperlinks across full range of AT?
15:14:00 cs: hyperlinks would get flattened because of display:none
15:14:18 authors should not reference hidden content that contains structure or active elements
15:14:43 jf: but if we expose full semantics, isn't a link part of that?
15:15:07 cs: if AAPIs support rich semantics and interactive elements
15:15:17 then it would be possible to show content and navigate hyperlinks
15:15:31 Q+
15:15:34 UI might be like summary/details (just a suggestion)
15:15:44 a lot of work needed to make this happen
15:15:59 js: so the object AT knows about is provided by the user agent
15:16:00 q+
15:16:30 cs: if I were designing, would put the rich content in the DOM and the AAPI
15:16:50 could just put in the AAPI, but wouldn't be visible/navigable by mainstream users
15:17:19 jf: consider a screen reader that is also a screen magnifier
15:17:25 should work for this
15:17:47 cs: I would access AAPI, open a window, instantiate a browser instance, build a DOM, and render it
15:17:53 either the AT or the browser could build the UI
15:18:12 jf: concerned that if this remains underspecified we'll have pain
15:18:24 I used to argue against @accesskey because of lack of discoverability
15:18:38 that same argument has been applied to @longdesc more recently
15:18:57 so really concerned about suggesting a technique that doesn't specify discoverability
15:19:24 js: discoverability is a new aspect of this we need to address
15:19:31 but meanwhile on the hyperlink question
15:19:41 jf: WCAG 2 requires hyperlinks have visible focus
15:20:02 js: CS has given a path to that
15:20:08 cs: there is a lot of work to be done
15:20:23 since it's not done, it's vague in the spec right now
15:20:34 but if you or someone proposes a UI, that would be a helpful contribution
15:20:39 Q?
15:20:48 ack JF
15:21:03 js: so what is exposed to the AAPI has a full set of DOM features?
15:21:08 cs: yes, it's just a subtree
15:21:12 js: to test limits
15:21:23 would canvas, video work?
15:21:30 cs: no technical reason it can't work
15:21:39 may not be good idea in practice
15:21:44 but that's a design pattern issue
15:22:13 jf: I'm just worried that this is so under-specified
15:22:41 worried this could be a technique that allows willfull violation of WCAG
15:23:10 s/willfull/willful/
15:23:13 zakim, unmute me
15:23:13 Stevef should no longer be muted
15:23:47 ack s
15:24:10 js: first step is somethign that works, whether it's a good idea is separate
15:24:33 sf: hearing that AT could just build an alternate UI
15:24:57 some AT have a range of alternate views
15:25:24 right now it's vague
15:25:31 don't see this aspect being dealt with in short term
15:25:40 there are so many other features to implement
15:25:53 so shouldn't get stuck on this feature right now
15:25:57 zakim, mute me
15:25:57 Stevef should now be muted
15:26:01 q?
15:26:11 js: moving on to discoverability issue
15:26:45 one use case covered a lot by Rich, where intent of hidden content is to stay hidden to all users for some specific reason
15:26:58 so author is controlling, and wants control over, when it's exposed
15:27:23 while we want programmatic discoverability so AT can tell user "there's something hidden there"
15:27:27 which is a clash
15:27:43 shouldn't leave this to UI implementation
15:27:55 need a flag that addresses both use case
15:28:14 cs: hidden content not referenced by an IDREF should be just hidden
15:28:27 hidden content referenced by an IDREF is associated with the referring element
15:28:32 is a property of that element, as it were
15:28:52 so should be exposed in that circumstance
15:29:03 browser can tell which of those situations you're in
15:29:04 q+
15:29:49 jf: sounds like presence of an IDREF switches the value of the @hidden attribute
15:29:52 cs: sort of
15:30:08 like display:none where in certain circumstances the AAPI is populated
15:30:23 if author didn't want that, they wouldn't reference the object
15:30:32
15:31:15 author could choose to only set e.g., @aria-describedby when they want the association to be made, so it's fully hidden until the IDREF exists
15:31:21 jf: I guess sort of works
15:31:38 cs: addresses showing content when author not expecting
15:31:48 would like to see some code samples exploring these use cases
15:31:52 ack s
15:32:11 js: Steve, thoughts?
15:32:15 sf: +1 to CS
15:32:35 note that AT do what they want anyways
15:32:40 defining doesn't mean they'll follow
15:32:53 zakim, mute me
15:32:53 Stevef should now be muted
15:33:10 js: so propose we should put something about this into the section
15:33:39 since it addresses use cases and defines how software can tell which use case applies
15:34:00 cs: author turns on ability for user to access hidden content by adding IDREF
15:34:18 js: please make proposal around this
15:34:19 cs: will do
15:34:30 dmd: +1 to CS
15:34:32 ack d
15:35:06 zakim, next item
15:35:06 agendum 2. "Issue-30 Status & Next Steps" taken up [from janina]
15:35:49 jb: back on 204, note Sam clarified on list that potential removal of ARIA from HTML spec no longer under consideration
15:36:25 jb: on HTML-ISSUE-30
15:36:37 note HTML-ISSUE-204 was part of a dependency chain leading back to this
15:37:08 this TF has twice confirmed support for a change proposal worked up by Laura Carlson
15:37:15 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/InstateLongdesc
15:37:35 neither the position nor details have changed
15:37:46 but did review some updated text from the text sub-team
15:37:56 to better explain the supporting evidence
15:38:20 and pulled in information from the requirements page
15:38:38 needed to add a statement about dependency chain
15:39:03 now HTML-ISSUE-204 progressing, we have something we can say
15:39:11 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/Talk:ChangeProposals/InstateLongdesc
15:39:26 little more cleanup to do on the change proposal
15:39:43 the subhead should now read: Relation to Issue 204 and ARIA describedby
15:40:04 expect that to be in soon
15:40:37 removes reference to Formal Objection
15:41:06 comments?
15:41:25 would like to get review and ready for HTML WG survey within a few business days
15:41:34 q?
15:41:51 s/AAPI/accessibility API/G
15:42:01 s/AT/assistive technology/G
15:42:24 intent was to be matter-of-fact and orient better
15:42:36 to the evidence etc.
15:42:51 would like this language in place by early-to-mid next week
15:43:19 expect call for updated consensus of TF maililng list today
15:43:26 s/maililng/mailing/
15:43:39 at next text sub-team meeting, would review comments
15:44:18 invite TF members to join the call (Tuesday 18 Sep 2012 17:00 UTC)
15:44:38 objection to this process?
15:44:41 no objection
15:45:15 +! to Judy's proposal
15:45:23 so plan to confirm updated consensus at that meeting, not wait for following TF meeting
15:45:29 s/+!/+1/
15:46:24 this would specifically be with the changed subhead as well.
15:47:10 mc: any TF member can make the edit
15:47:19 jb: Laura has been making changes, prefer to keep on her plate
15:47:48 s/keep her on plate/let her do that/
15:48:51 js: input?
15:49:04 trying to make a helpful change, time-sensitive
15:49:23 jb: survey will go out before 1pm, we'll need to change it in the wiki before then
15:49:37 zakim, next item
15:49:37 agendum 3. "Issue-31B (Sec. 4.8)" taken up [from janina]
15:50:06 js: now other issues clearing out of the way, we can look at this more
15:50:55 need to bring HTML chairs / WG up to speed with the advice that conflicts with WCAG and the alternate version Steve prepared
15:51:19 want to leave that with just lexical definition of @alt, let the other resources talk about usage
15:51:48 also there are examples that don't use alt text well
15:51:57 want to provide suggestions for improving it
15:52:25 need some people to help with that, shouldn't be too hard
15:52:59 jb: the priority is the first part of this, related to guidance
15:53:36 dmd: expect to discuss details with you soon
15:53:59 js: DMD is lead author in highlighting where the advice confilcts
15:54:10 s/confilcts/conflicts/
15:54:13 zakim, next item
15:54:13 agendum 4. "Issue-206 Open Discussion" taken up [from janina]
15:54:35 js: not sure if this is in active debate
15:54:50 the meta generator language has been approved to be removed (not sure if that edit is made yet)
15:54:56 issue 206 is quiet at the moment
15:55:03 should explore whether substitute language should go in
15:55:11 any active discussion?
15:55:21 jf: haven't seen activity on list
15:56:07 js: there have been circumstances in which a validator shouldn't penalize missing alt when the authoring tool couldn't do anything about it
15:56:22 has a case been made to talk about this in the document?
15:56:31 could mean the conditions for validation change
15:56:46 zakim, unmute me
15:56:46 Stevef should no longer be muted
15:57:00 meaning a static element in the document might not be up to date
15:57:09 sf: no discussion of that
15:57:19 js: will bring that proposal up
15:57:31 note there's exploration of taking this to HTML.next
15:57:50 zakim, next item
15:57:50 agendum 5. "The Task Force at the TPAC" taken up [from janina]
15:57:55 zakim,mute me
15:57:55 Stevef should now be muted
15:58:29 js: TF has no separate time at the Technical Plenary, but typically meets as part of the HTML WG meeting on Thur / Fri that week
15:58:46 will ask more and more about agenda for that
15:58:49 zakim, next item
15:58:49 agendum 5 was just opened, MichaelC
15:58:54 zakim, close this item
15:58:54 agendum 5 closed
15:58:55 I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
15:58:55 6. Subteam Reports: Bug Triage; Text; ARIA Mappings [from janina]
15:59:09 -Janina_Sajka
15:59:10 -Cooper
15:59:10 -Stevef
15:59:10