See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 20 September 2012
<janina> Meeting: HTML-A11Y Task Force Teleconference
<scribe> scribe: MichaelC
js: Proposal from HTML chairs
also signed off by me, Judy, Philippe
goal to get HTML5 to Rec in 2014
it's only a proposal right now
we should discuss
but not expect to come to conclusions
plan could change based on discussion here, in HTML WG, and in PFWG
<Judy> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012Sep/0367.html
<Judy> http://www.w3.org/QA/2012/09/getting_html5_to_recommendatio.html
<Judy> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Sep/0243.html
<Judy> http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/html5-2014-plan.html
jb: first link is announcement of plan from Paul
second is blog by Philippe
third is another announcement of plan
fourth is the plan proposal itself
Philippe and I signed off as Domain leads, Philippe's role wasn't specific as W3C management representatives, but rather he and I are counterpart domain leads; we are also both part of W3C management.
there's a lot of detail including re accessibility
have seem some good requests for clarification on the lists
would like to have a HTML co-chair go over plan
and then Janina or I may go into accessibility implications in more detail
<rubys> one error: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Sep/0269.html
plh: we have found one error at least
so we know the plan will change
sr: nothing to add to PLH
not sure going through plan point by point will help, though can
jb: some high level points
one is emphasis on modularity
<paulc> joining soon
features could start as extensions, and either move to standalone spec with separate timeline, or get integrated into core spec
one aspect of background context is the existing different conformance model for HTML5 spec, more of a smorgasbord of what implementers may choose
so extension specs could be considered peer-level specifications with the core
the plan also gives a mandate to this task force to work on extension specs
seeking careful review and consideration of whether this would work into the future
js: there's been some question about how TF decisions are weighed in HTML decision process
this plan shifts authority to TF to develop specs for features of key interest
sf: if an extension spec provides a feature not in HTML5, it seems to work
if an extension changes or removes an HTML5 feature, it gets messy
<rubys> Background on Steve's point: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Sep/0282.html
I tried today creating an extension spec to remove <hgroup> and ended up needing to copy the whole spec with references removed
<rubys> Background on Steve's second point: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Sep/0284.html
also was caught by surprise by recommendation to move text alternative document to the TF
since I'm the editor
jb: one part of the plan is "willful violations"
which extension specs can do
think the general intent was not to remove existing accessibility support
but to provide a smoother path to development of features that hadn't yet made it in
including different timeline
there is still effort to remove text alternative section in spec
sr: wouldn't want an extension spec to be an entire replacement of spec
would prefer to come up with a core spec that can be cleanly extended
should work together on how to do that
sf: keeping <hgroup> would be controversial and potential accessibility impact
would prefer to see a "clean" core spec and all these features as extension specs
sr: what do you think should become of the text alternative doc?
sf: prefer to leave it where it is
if it's an extension spec making a willful violation of HTML, it's less strong
js: what if the conflict with what's in HTML now gets resolved?
sf: then we could re-assess
right now everything in flux
js: seems to me Steve's concern with <hgroup> is similar to others' concern about separating ARIA integration into an extension spec
process-wise, nothing's fait accompli, so now is opportunity to ask about the fate of the text alternatives doc
pc: text alternatives document has a Formal Objection against it that it can't be normative because it contradicts HTML5
doing it as an extension spec flattens that problem
sf: it already presents itself as an extension
jb: one question I've heard in background is implication on forking
hearing that this plan more clearly provides a way to address the FO on the text alternative doc
<Stevef> paulc: "This specification is an extension to the HTML5 specification [HTML5]. All normative content in the HTML5 specification, unless specifically overridden by this specification, is intended to be the basis for this specification." http://dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/
but also have heard that if various extensions taken at different times, the accessibility features could fragment
not sure if it's a problem, but have had questions from some places on that
how do we keep extensions from becoming fragments?
pc: speaking as Microsoft representative - we don't look at where a feature is documented, core or extension
i.e., RDFa vs microdata, chose to implement both
should address perception that where something is documented might affect implementation
implementers implement features that the market demands etc.
<rubys> +1 to "we can't resolve everything today"
js: note we can't resolve everything today, so we're just discussing issues
<paulc> Implementers choose features to implement that are a) well specified and b) meet market demand
jf: concerns about optics
e.g., FO that text alt document contradicts HTML
<paulc> In my view implementers don't worry about "where" something is specified ie in a core spec or an extensions spec
<rubys> formal objection that jf and others have referenced: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2011May/0051.html
suggest we could lead to a "HTML+A11Y" variant
which marginalizes accessibility
in this particular example, there are conflicting viewpoints about how to handle text alternatives to best meet the needs of the customer
pc: hear this as a concern about the "end game", is that accurate?
jf: partly
I hear there will be willful violations
what will ordinary implementers make of this?
which version will they choose
the FO puts weight on a direction
pc: I'm concerned about the end game
want to get past Last Call and find path to end game that makes everyone happy
we've been discussing issues with alt and suggestions to address
note recent change of editors
and work with the new team by opening bugs etc.
the situation of "opposing sides casting missiles at each other" doesn't work
I agree with some of the concerns
the plan gets us to CR, takes some of the pressure and tension off
and gives opportunity to merge things back in later
jb: potential for marginalization of accessibility one of the greatest risks we saw going into this plan
importance of having solutions available for HTML 5
makes it worth proceeding along this route
depends on a lot of things working well
there have been questions about reintegration path
procedure is documented in the plan, and there are conditions
the features must meet the CR exit criteria
<rubys> exit criteria: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Sep/0215.html
note the "Public Permissive CR Exit Criteria" is what's meant by that
^
look at that, and how it might apply to extension specs, particularly ones hoped for reintegration
the other criteria is whether the extension spec can gain consensus of the HTML WG
that may mean developing clearer explanations, or developing the features in a way that may receive broader acceptance
<scribe thinks he lost some details here>
jf: going back to optics
<rubys> feel an important point judy made might have been missed: proposals may need clarifications or may need adjustment to gain wider consensus
I'm trying to keep an open mind
but prospect of HTML+A11Y variant is a non-starter for me
not just for impact on implementations
but also on authors
many of whom have particular requirements
forces them to make a choice between forks
how do we avoid the perception of two standards (whether it's real or not)?
pc: did moving RDFa to a separate spec constitute a fork?
in that case there was even a competitive spec, microdata
but there's huge adoption of both
understand the perception issue, but don't think the reality need lead there
have many similar examples where forking feature out didn't inhibit adoption
jb: don't want to downplay concern about optics
have seen that over my years in developing accessibility solutions and observing what gets implemented
there could be a tendency to grab core HTML 5 and ignore extensions
looking at that from a marketing perspective
for the plan, want to see if it's sufficiently addressed in what's here
in some adoption contexts, could be very important to promote as a set
there are good things in the plan to try to address all this
welcome input to strengthen that
js: underlying concern isn't technological
it's "to ghetto or not to ghetto"
not just accessibility, is a common sociological concern for marginalized communities
today, some of the historically severe marginalization of people with disabilities is hard to understand but it's part of our context
note the proposal cuts both ways
do recognize need to balance optics
<Zakim> rubys, you wanted to say getting in the spec doesn't cause features to be adopted; as paul stated, what causes features to be adopted in a clear specification that addresses a
sr: reiterate that getting feature in spec doesn't get it adopted, JF even on record saying that
jf: accessibility isn't a feature, it's a core requirement
referring to it as a feature misses the bigger picture
going back to RDFa vs microformats analogy
it's known as "HTML+RDFa"
so there's an optics problem there
<something about alt and not good>
<paulc> Are people aware that the AC has approved a new charter for the RDFa WG that gives them responsibility for the HTML+RDFa specification. It is being moved out of the HTML WG.
the willful violation is core of my concern
sf: RDFa vs microdata - there were negative attitudes about microdata that persisted; and RDFa was easily moved out
<paulc> While I don't disagree with Steve's point, the main reason why Microdata was moved out was to put it on the same footing as RDFa.
understand implementers will implement what they will, but concern about what's in or out of the spec affects validator behaviour and perception of developers
regardless of what is in fact implemented
js: Willful violations was definitely a concern
jb: there was discussion of feature vs core requirements
may want to promote a family of HTML 5 specs
understanding reintegration path impact on accessibility will be valuable
perhaps we should talk about timelines etc.
pc: chairs will eventually do a call for consensus
but have no schedule, because weren't sure what response would be
don't want to prematurely close discussion and call for consensus
but do request input as soon as possible
<rubys> pointer to validator discussion: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Sep/0283.html
note for HTML+RDFa, that spec is being moved out of HTML to RDFa WG
so extension specs don't even have to be done in the HTML WG
to point out a positive of extension specs, they can be modified without modifying the core spec
if ARIA were an extension spec, e.g., adding aria-describedat might be easier
sr: as soon as extensions make it to FPWD, they would be implemented in the validator
js: strong point
<Zakim> JF, you wanted to note that we have already noted that there are 2 type of "conformance" - implementation and authoring
jf: there are already two conformance criteria
I do support modularization of development
<rubys> s/<missed>/once an extension spec gets to FPWD, I expect that it will be quickly added to the W3C validator/
just don't want accessibility to seem like an optional add-on
may be just optics
js: could be opportunity for strength
jf: ... have to talk more about that ...
js: thanks all, let's join the HTML WG 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/one concern is different conformance mode/one aspect of background context is the existing different conformance model/ Succeeded: s/so extension specs could be preferred sometimes/so extension specs could be considered peer-level specifications with the core/ Succeeded: s/not as W3C management representatives/Philippe's role wasn't specific as W3C management representatives, but rather he and I are counterpart domain leads; we are also both part of W3C management./ Succeeded: s/and then go into accessibility implications/and then Janina or I may go into accessibility implications in more detail/ Succeeded: s/many places/some places/ Succeeded: s|choose/|choose| Succeeded: s/pc: ack p// Succeeded: s/importance of having solutions available in HTML 5/importance of having solutions available for HTML 5/ Succeeded: s/there's also questions about the consensus in the HTML spec/the other criteria is whether the extension spec can gain consensus of the HTML WG/ Succeeded: s/need broader consensus/that may mean developing clearer explanations, or developing the features in a way that may receive broader acceptance/ Succeeded: s/in the field/in developing accessibility solutions and observing what gets implemented/ Succeeded: s/quit// Succeeded: s/<missed>/as soon as extensions make it to FPWD, they would be implemented in the validator/ FAILED: s/<missed>/once an extension spec gets to FPWD, I expect that it will be quickly added to the W3C validator/ Found Scribe: MichaelC Inferring ScribeNick: MichaelC Default Present: Cooper, Janina, Judy, hober, Sam, John_Foliot, Steve_Faulkner, Cynthia_Shelly, Plh, paulc Present: Cooper Janina Judy hober Sam John_Foliot Steve_Faulkner Cynthia_Shelly Plh paulc Found Date: 20 Sep 2012 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/09/20-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]