See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 27 September 2012
<janina> Meeting: HTML-A11Y Task Force Teleconference
<scribe> scribe: David
Revisions to plan for HTML to REC by 2014, Sam posted to all lists...
we will reduce descrepencies in alt guidance, and steve's note... identifid specifically
<plh> Changed to reflect keeping the Alt Techniques document in the HTML WG, and asking the editors and task force to work together to reduce differences.
<plh> Clarified that the A11y TF can chose to produce multiple extension specifications for the full-transcript issue.
Philip: 2 things... Changed to reflect keeping the Alt Techniques document in the HTML WG, and asking the editors and task force to work together to reduce differences ... Clarified that the A11y TF can chose to produce multiple extension specifications for the full-transcript issue.
Philippe... extensions can be worked into HTML5
JF: agree exit criteria is going to be critical... we need to spend more time on it. current discussion ...I asked adrienne, what happens it we've got something implemented for accessbility, but don't have any support
outline elements, landmards... do we have 2 AT tools that do that
2 points ... browsers says weve implemented but not AT. (2) implemented in AT bt not browsers (longdesc
jf continues: Adrienne says only MS can report on implementation on MS products
JS: We can verify with JAWS... don't need their declaration
<JF> Exit Criteria: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Sep/0215.html
JF: but Adrienne says its unacceptable for us or anyone to report on implementation of IE
JS: we'll demonstrate it works in JAWS, that should be enough
Rich: concerned we're writing compliance criteria, and we don't have any
<JF> +1 to cyns
RS: TIETAC shows that people don't like 3rd party people writing implementation
Cynthia: Should not be done in HTML
RS: the whole AP discussion... big isue, almost HTML.next
JF: if feature Feature foo... is mapped to Accessbility API... is that enough
RS: we'll work with browsers if
something is mapped properly
... trying to think of ways to do it without holding up HTML5... perhaps an extension
<Zakim> JF, you wanted to ask about extension nomenclature
jf: steve faulkner put out
HTML-hgroup... concerned about moving accessibility out of
HTML5, could end up as HTML+A11Y
... extensions can be precarious... html5+RDFA an impression of 2 specs, one with, and one without , concerned about the optics of Steve's doc
Philippe: extensions... agree with JFs concern and we'll have to work with it...
Judy: JS and me have particularly looked at concerns of impressions/optics... understood to different degrees to different places... one possibility then is that it could cause problems with take up ... plan on promoting them as a family of extensions...peer level specs... important that the implementation path is available for use, if the TF decides that it wants to use it... should make use the plan is robust and credible...
as well as status is peer level spec... inviting people to look at all options... may work better to have extension that can be easily revised as things move forward... invite you to look a the feedback mechanisms
js: not necessarily an operator
between the extensions and html (-, +) is not in the plans...
... all agree that we need to be careful going forward
... from W3C hoping that if people are concerned to make suggestions that will make it work...
js: extensions can be developed on our time... as soon as our extension is published... we can consider either roll it in or go on it's on CR... it's an opportunity...
<JF> If an extension specification is to be nominated for integration into a base specification, it must first meet the CR exit criteria for the base specification. That is, every feature in the extension spec must demonstrate the level of interoperability that would be required for a feature in the base spec.
Philippe: as it's own spec extension does not have the same rigorous exit criteria... but to come back in to HTML5 it has a higher bar...
JF: to be rolled back in requires concensus and two independent implementation... but what if browsers don't implement even if we've got the mapping right
JB: Just requires it to be in the stack... not in the user agent..
JB: 1 concern... how much browsers expected to implement if they weren't interested... does that affect it's reintegration
<JF> "These criteria are unclear on whether the combination of a user agent with another piece of software, such as an assistive technology, or a browser extension, would qualify for purposes of meeting the CR exit criteria."
jb: for longdesc to work... AT is fine, as long as it works with AT an the Browser... if it's in the stack...
<JF> "It's good to have expectations about this clear up front."
JB: critical ... permissive exit criteria, removes implementation pressure...
<richardschwerdtfe> I need to drop
jf: don't have clear exit criteria about expectations of exit criteria in the docs...
JS: can you propose repair text for editing of the docs to make it clearly
JB: if rolled back in, its not an extension, if not it is an ext.
Philippe: Docs do not address concerns of John ... we should look at it...
<scribe> ACTION: John will recommend language changes to clarify exit criteria implementation expectations... [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/09/27-html-a11y-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-140 - Will recommend language changes to clarify exit criteria implementation expectations... [on John Foliot - due 2012-10-04].
JB: text subteam... talking about plan forward... a few more survey responses...added as addendum... agree... survey glitch...
JB: David MacDonald and I met over his doc... finished most of remaining parts... David made changes clarificationsetc
JB: I need about 15 minutes... with the doc before passing it to editors and chairs
<Judy> JB: I will be passing along remaining clarifications on the bottom part of the document hopefully by tonight.
js: Ted O'Conner, thinks he's addressed outstanding issues... we should review and raise issues... looks like it's coming to an end.
JF: consered about links not getting visual focus
JS: suggested that they be fixed in Accessibility API's
CS: api people need to go off and figure out how to do that... that's why we're not making recyet
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.137 of Date: 2012/09/20 20:19:01 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/Philip/Philippe/ Succeeded: s/ imlemented/ implemented/ Succeeded: s/writed/writing/ Succeeded: s/ vendors/ people/ Succeeded: s/are aware of/have particularly looked at/ Succeeded: s/problems with take up/one possibility then is that it could cause problems with take up/ Succeeded: s/important to use reintegration path/important that the implementation path is available for use, if the TF decides that it wants to use it/ WARNING: Bad s/// command: s/w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ExtensionSpecifications/http://w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ExtensionSpecifications Succeeded: s/maike/make/ Succeeded: s/clarifiacations /clarifications/ Found Scribe: David Inferring ScribeNick: David Default Present: Janina, David_MacDonald, John_Foliot, Cooper, Judy, Michael_Cooper, Plh, Rich, Cynthia_Shelly Present: Janina David_MacDonald John_Foliot Cooper Judy Michael_Cooper Plh Rich Cynthia_Shelly Regrets: Paul_Cotton Found Date: 27 Sep 2012 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/09/27-html-a11y-minutes.html People with action items: changes john language recommend will WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]