14:49:20 RRSAgent has joined #html-a11y
14:49:20 logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/10/11-html-a11y-irc
14:49:22 RRSAgent, make logs world
14:49:22 Zakim has joined #html-a11y
14:49:24 Zakim, this will be 2119
14:49:24 ok, trackbot; I see WAI_PFWG(HTML TF)10:00AM scheduled to start 49 minutes ago
14:49:25 Meeting: HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference
14:49:25 Date: 11 October 2012
14:49:31 agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012Oct/0070.html
14:49:41 regrets: James_Craig
14:49:55 davidb_ has joined #html-a11y
14:51:57 paulc has joined #html-a11y
14:58:12 janina has joined #html-a11y
14:58:20 trackbot, start meeting
14:58:22 RRSAgent, make logs world
14:58:24 Zakim, this will be 2119
14:58:25 Meeting: HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference
14:58:25 Date: 11 October 2012
14:58:39 ok, trackbot; I see WAI_PFWG(HTML TF)10:00AM scheduled to start 58 minutes ago
14:59:28 zakim, call janina
14:59:28 ok, janina; the call is being made
14:59:29 WAI_PFWG(HTML TF)10:00AM has now started
14:59:30 +Janina
14:59:46 zakim, who's on the phone?
14:59:46 On the phone I see Janina
14:59:58 Meeting: HTML-A11Y Task Force Teleconference
14:59:58 Chair: Janina_Sajka
14:59:58 agenda+ Proposed TF Amendment http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012Oct/0063.html
15:00:01 agenda+ Sec. 7.1 Hidden http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/textFieldSelection.html#the-hidden-attribute
15:00:04 agenda+ Poster Alt Redux http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012Oct/0062.html
15:00:07 agenda+ Subteam Reports: Bug Triage; AAPI Mapping; Text
15:00:09 agenda+ The Task Force at the TPAC
15:00:12 agenda+ Other Business
15:00:14 agenda+ Actions Review http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/open
15:00:17 agenda+ Identify Scribe for the next TF teleconference http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/index.php?title=Scribe_List
15:00:20 agenda+ be done
15:00:47 +Cooper
15:00:54 zakim, what is the code?
15:00:54 the conference code is 2119 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), paulc
15:01:12 JF has joined #html-a11y
15:01:17 +[Microsoft]
15:01:18 +hober
15:01:19 Judy has joined #html-a11y
15:01:32 zakim, [Microsoft] has paulc
15:01:32 +paulc; got it
15:01:37 +John_Foliot
15:01:54 +Judy
15:02:28 richardschwerdtfe has joined #html-a11y
15:02:57 regrets: James_Craig
15:03:25 zakim, who's on the phone?
15:03:25 On the phone I see Janina, Cooper, [Microsoft], hober, John_Foliot, Judy
15:03:27 [Microsoft] has paulc
15:03:45 agenda?
15:03:59 +Rich
15:05:05 zakim, take up item 1
15:05:12 agendum 1. "Proposed TF Amendment http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012Oct/0063.html" taken up [from janina]
15:05:19 DRAFT RESOLUTION: The HTML-A11Y Task Force approves and supports the HTML
15:05:19 Working Group's proposed addition to the Task Force Scope of Work statement as
15:05:21 Stevef has joined #html-a11y
15:05:22 documented at:
15:05:24 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Oct/0016.html
15:05:27
15:05:47 will be a bit late to meeting
15:06:15 scribenick: Rich
15:06:22 +Cynthia_Shelly
15:06:25 meeting: HTML A11y task force
15:06:43 Steve, do you have any objections to the draft resolution as follows ...
15:06:44 DRAFT RESOLUTION: The HTML-A11Y Task Force approves and supports the HTML
15:06:44 Working Group's proposed addition to the Task Force Scope of Work statement as
15:06:47 documented at:
15:06:50 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Oct/0016.html
15:06:52
15:08:04 Topic: Amendment to the HTML A11Y Task Force Work Statement
15:08:24 janina: please read the draft
15:08:33 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Oct/0016.html
15:08:45 rubys has joined #html-a11y
15:09:28 janina: if agreed upon we would announce the change
15:10:30 judy: The proposal is to add the following at the end of the "Scope of Work"
15:10:30 section:
15:10:32 The task force may also create specifications that extend
15:10:33 deliverables of the HTML Working Group, in the area of
15:10:35 accessibility. The Accessibility Task Force will have decision
15:10:36 authority over the contents of such extension specifications. Any
15:10:38 such specifications will be considered jointly produced by the HTML
15:10:39 Working Group and PFWG, for purposes of W3C Publication. This means
15:10:41 that, as with any w3c joint task force deliverable, both Working
15:10:42 Groups must approve transitions such as First Public Working Draft
15:10:44 or Last Call. It also means that documents will create Patent
15:10:45 Policy obligations in both groups. Members of either Working Group
15:10:46 who have technical comments or objections on Task Force
15:10:47 publications are expected to raise them in the context of the Task
15:10:48 Force.
15:11:19 http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/html-task-force
15:11:34 DRAFT RESOLUTION: The HTML-A11Y Task Force approves and supports the HTML
15:11:34 Working Group's proposed addition to the Task Force Scope of Work statement as
15:11:37 documented at:
15:11:40 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Oct/0016.html
15:12:10 janina: the link is part of the resolution
15:12:45 janina: we could do something different if desired. Any comments?
15:13:04 janina: we can have an email consensus
15:13:24 janina: if there are no objections do we resolve this?
15:13:34 janina: any reservations or concerns?
15:13:35 q+
15:14:06 judy: I want to just note that there has been a clarification question on the list with regard to the task force processing of this.
15:14:07 Q+
15:14:23 judy: there was a question as to what is expected.
15:14:48 judy: Maciej clarified on the HTML WG list but agreed there it could be clearer
15:15:10 Judy: Approvals for extensions would be going through the decision policy. It would go through a call for consensus.
15:15:47 Judy: Perhaps for the record Paul or Sam could restate what the HTML co-chairs plan on handling extension publication approval in terns of a call for consensus
15:15:59 Judy: Paul and Sam are on the call
15:16:21 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Oct/0043.html
15:16:44 Judy: I am looking for co-chair confirmation
15:17:31 Paul: I am asking as the decision process handles bugs. I am trying to grapple with how any decision policy talks about this.
15:17:39 Judy: we have people wondering about this
15:17:46 Paul: I understand
15:17:49 https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8895
15:17:57 Judy: that is the bug
15:18:24 Judy: All observers not paying attention as to how document advancements have been published
15:18:36 Judy: The bug that is there is the one that needs to be clarified
15:18:43 -hober
15:18:44 +[Apple]
15:18:51 Zakim, Apple is me
15:18:51 +hober; got it
15:19:18 +[IPcaller]
15:19:39 janina: I think the confusion, as I heard it, is that some people think that an extension goes through the consensus process before getting published which I don't think is the intent.
15:19:46 zakim, [IPcaller] is me
15:19:46 +Stevef; got it
15:20:07 Q?
15:20:23 Paul: I don't have an opinion. This bug is very old. The heart of the bug is that we should have a single document. The existing version 3 of the decision policy does not cover this matter
15:20:26 zakim, codes
15:20:26 I don't understand 'codes', rubys
15:20:33 zakim, what is the passcode?
15:20:33 the conference code is 2119 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), rubys
15:20:36 s/co-chair confirmation/co-chair confirmation in the TF minutes, since we have gotten several questions about what the approval process would be for standalone extension mechanisms./
15:20:46 Paul: The HTML working group would issue a call for consensus on issuing the first public working draft
15:20:57 Paul: I am not sure how we mitigate the concern
15:20:59 +Sam
15:21:31 Judy: what you are saying is that what we always do is issue a call for consensus to which we can point people to.
15:21:53 Paul: the text we are talking about pertains to progressions toward last call
15:22:03 Paul: When we did the last call for HTMl5 we actually did a survey.
15:22:31 Paul: We did not only a call for consensus but we also enabled a survey to log peoples consensus
15:22:37 q+
15:22:59 q?
15:23:05 ack ju
15:23:09 Paul: For last call a survey accurately records the in put from participants
15:23:58 Judy: You are talking about progressions toward last call. If we are getting something actually published toward a spec. we need to address all steps including recommendation. So I am puzzled by the survey point.
15:24:02 www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/html5-last-call-poll/results
15:24:13 Paul: if you look back we did a survey and a call for consensus
15:24:41 Paul: I don't have any historical consensus beyond last call
15:24:59 Paul: we might even do a call for consensus on the implementation/test plan
15:25:43 Judy: to summarize it is not clear but it will probably be call for consensus plus survey in what is covered in the decision policy
15:25:57 Paul: I don't know why you are referring to the decision policy
15:26:06 Judy: Got it. Call for consensus plus survey
15:26:18 ack jf
15:26:22 JF: I have a pragmatic question/proposal
15:26:40 JF: The question centers around philosophy
15:27:18 JF: What happens when the task force is philosophically opposed.
15:27:50 JF: I am referring to longdesc as an extension. How do we resolve those philosophical vs. technical decisions.
15:27:58 Paul: I don't have an answer at this time.
15:28:08 q+
15:28:41 Sam: I think what is now is attempted is completely different. Before we were not dependent on implementation. That is different now.
15:29:14 q?
15:29:20 ack ju
15:29:51 q+
15:29:52 Judy: Was there not a change to replace technical with substantive? I believe it was substituted in one part of the language and not in this.
15:30:21 Judy: It missed in edit that it superseded the word technical. That may be why we unnecessarily have this concern
15:30:22 plh has joined #html-a11y
15:30:57 Sam: I remember this discussion. It was made by consensus. I would not object to the change.
15:31:33 Judy: while it is less likely we would get pushback it would allay some of the existing perceptional issues
15:31:37 s/was made by/was made on the call for/
15:31:52 janina: Are you referring to a one word change?
15:32:04 Q+
15:32:05 janina: replace technical with substantive.
15:32:22 Sam: It went out with the call for consensus
15:32:46 janina: sound like Sam agrees to this as a friendly amendment
15:32:53 +Plh
15:32:55 Sam: Yes if the co-chairs agree
15:33:19 Judy: the task may be prepared to move forward with this one amendment
15:33:33 janina: a one word amendment
15:33:51 q?
15:33:51 JF: I think that making that one word has benefit.
15:34:09 q+
15:34:23 ack JF
15:34:31 JF: when it reaches the point where the task force comes to the broader working group what do we do when there is a weak vs. strong objection.
15:34:56 http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies#managing-dissent
15:35:34 JF: I have heard discussions on both sides of the issue will be used for the GUI interface. When there is direct interaction with the browser this would be a good thing. Others say it should not have an impact on the discussion. That is a philosophical decision.
15:35:48 JF: How do we have that discussion?
15:35:51 q?
15:36:06 ack r
15:37:18 Sam: is it the intent of the co-chairs of the task force that this be an escalation point. we would need to manage the descent. The W3C process is more about evaluating the proposals themselves.
15:38:06 ack Stevef
15:38:10 ack John_Foliot
15:38:26 q+
15:38:39 ack ju
15:38:43 Steve: I agree with Sam and I do as well
15:38:54 I'll try to add it to IRC:
15:38:59 thanks
15:40:07 q?
15:40:08 Judy: concerns as to how evidence is weighted wrt. other issues. I am clarifying the difference in scenario that the process presents
15:40:11 passing the exit criteria is considered strong evidence; generally must stronger than philosophic concerns over which there are no concrete proposals or no evidence of implementation or actual usage
15:40:14 MichaelC_ has joined #html-a11y
15:40:35 Rich: Agreed
15:40:39 s/must/much/
15:40:56 Judy: Agreed
15:41:03 Steve: Agreed
15:41:29 s/must/much/
15:42:26 example: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Mar/0005.html
15:43:20 rubys: and that resulted in a forking of html/html5
15:43:25 cynthia: would not the impact of aria on the browser behavior be part of the ARIA spec. and not the HTML spec.?
15:43:46 cynthia: the impact of ARIA markup on mainstream browser behavior.
15:45:29 q+
15:47:03 Rich: I think that today authors are going pick up aria for development. If browsers pick up aria to enhance their interface they will do so because it is the right thing to do.
15:47:04 ack next
15:47:32 Sam: if browsers implement UI features that will trump philosophical differences
15:47:52 Cynthia: this could be addressed in the ARIA 2.0 time frame.
15:49:01 I am going to step away to get ready for the WG call.
15:49:06 Rich: I think more interactive behavior based in ARIA would be in the 2.0 time frame so I agree with Cynthia.
15:49:42 janina: is there any objection to the draft resolution with the addition to replacing technical with substantive?
15:49:55 Rich and Judy: No objection
15:51:56 RESOLUTION: The task force supports the work statement amendment with the substitution of substantive for technical
15:52:04 +1
15:52:08 +1
15:52:47 https://twitter.com/HTML_Commits/status/256414328763322368
15:53:12 Topic: 7.1
15:53:15 Q+
15:53:18 'screen reader' to 'printer'
15:54:01 Rich: I was asked to file a bug
15:54:11 bug 18299?
15:54:29 Ted: the substitution for screen readers with printers was done.
15:54:37 bugs 18299, 19159, 19277, and 19279
15:54:53 Ted: these are the 4 remaining bugs
15:54:59 q+ to ask what about action 142? http://www.w3.org/2012/10/04-html-a11y-minutes.html#action02
15:55:06 Ted: they are interrelated.
15:55:25 Ted: For styling purposes this is probably not ideal
15:55:51 https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18299
15:56:17 Ted: so you can set display on a number of spans and then when you applied the hidden attribute and the display overrided it the CSS would win
15:56:42 Ted: this will clear up all the resolutions between CSS display:none and hidden would be addressed.
15:56:46 ack jf
15:57:33 JF: In the language that was suggested to Ted you could still include scriptable content. Last week some of the event handlers do require focus. Where do they fit into the larger picture.
15:58:03 JF: we say that you cannot put focus on that hidden div. There seems to be a contradiction here. I have not heard a response.
15:58:22 ack next
15:58:24 rubys, you wanted to ask what about action 142? http://www.w3.org/2012/10/04-html-a11y-minutes.html#action02
15:58:34 Sam: Is this the list of bugs. I see Cynthia on the call who was supposed to open another bug.
15:58:42 "cynthia to file HTML bug about methods that should fail when an element has @hidden set"
15:58:52 JF: it is around the event handlers in JavaScript
15:59:03 +1 :-)
15:59:19 janina: we need to get this addressed.
15:59:27 -[Microsoft]
15:59:33 Rich: I agree with Ted that the CSS issue needs to be addressed first
15:59:34 -Sam
15:59:55 Ted: If we make a change to the default styling of hidden we will make CSS aware of it.
16:00:02 -Plh
16:00:14 RRSAgent make log public
16:00:22 RRSAgent draft minutes
16:00:35