HTML A11y TF weekly telecon

<MarkS> zakim IP is lwatson

decision process

<scribe> scribe: Léonie Watson

<chaals> [chaals owes Leonie a nice dinner]

longdesc spec: ongoing CfC, length of LC, tests

CMN: Currently in CFC. Assuming it passes we'll ask PF and HTML to publish a last call.
... Question is how long the LC should last. Minimum is three weeks, optimum is six weeks.

JS: We're required with LC to leave 60 days for patent policy. So wecan have short LC, but can't move to CR in less than 60 days.

CMN: The policy doesn't stop you from going forward, but in practice it would be annoying to have a recommendation before.
... The odds of us finding a patent exclusion now are very low, given that the technology is extremely old.

<janina_> http://www.w3.org/2003/12/22-pp-faq.html

JS: I'm not sure that is correct. Will follow up.

JB: If you need additional time, it's better to give people it under LC review.
... Whether you think there is a patent or not is immaterial.
... I feel if there is a process it should be followed.

JS: Would much prefer a shorter LC, but don't think the patent policy supports this.
... Safest to say 60 days.

CMN: Anyone object to a 60 day LC?
... Hearing no objections.

<chaals> RESOLUTION: last call review period will be 60 days

CMN: We need some tests and a report of what passed the,. Should take a day, maybe two.

<Zakim> chaals, you wanted to propose a 6-day last call

HTML5 testing and demonstrating interoperability for Candidate

<MarkS> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Results_of_Spec_Review

MS: Met last week. Made it half way throuh the spec. Results logedon the wiki.
... The CFC from the HTML WG specifically asks for evidence of non-interoperability.
... Expect we'll assign tasks to individual TF members with expertise in the given area.

JS: Strikes me that there could be a situation where we have to provide evidence of a negative. Is not finding an implementation sufficient for example?
... It feels like a rule change. It's not clear to me.

SF: With regard to the ARIA information, providing evidence is possible, but will take work.

CMN: As I understand it, non-interoperability can be demonstrated by taking two implementations and showing that neither works.
... If we think part of the spec isn't interoperable, there can be a formal objection.

JB: We should provide more context, rather than just saying we object.

JB briefs PLH on recent discussion.

JS: This seems to go back to some of the problems we used to have. Where original decisions were not correct from an accessibility perspective.
... Don't believe it was intentional, but it feels as though accessibility was given a different bar, perhaps because we weren't in the room.

CMN: I was in the room. I don't think the WG has the expectation that we'll go through this like performing monkies.
... I will clarify this with the chairs, but I think we're being asked to provide our input, and provide information/evidence for interoperability issues.
... It may be that the ARIA stuff is not at a point where it's interoperable enough just to say it works.

PLH: For the parts considered interoperable, it's asking people to validate that status.

JS: We're talking about parts that are identified as interoperable (green), but which may not be.

<MarkS> link to CfC -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2013Jun/0033.html

<SteveF> here you go http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2013Jun/0071.html

CMN: We're building problems that may arise, into something more.

SF: Examples in my reply: HTML elements having interoperability at the accessibility layer in relation to ARIA.
... Heading rankings, images with no alt having role=presentation for example.

<Judy> Judy: the standard of evidence and consequences from the CFC read: "Objections of the form "features in 2.8.2.1 HTMLAllCollection are not currently interoperable" MUST be accompanied with specific evidence of non-interoperability, otherwise such objections will not be accepted by the Chairs."

JB: Commenting that something doesn't work probably won't be sufficient.
... Having to prove a negative will be difficult.

<MarkS> Overview doc -> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tests-cr-exit.html

PLH: Steve's email mentions the outline algorithmn, which is at risk. Thought this was only about the interoperable parts.

SF: Where ARIA is referenced is in parts that are interoperable.
... The requirements for default ARIA semantics.

<SteveF> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/dom.html#sec-implicit-aria-semantics

SF: This section is all green/interoperable.
... It shouldn't be. Would have objected if I'd been there when this was discussed.

CMN: The ARIA section of HTML makes statements aout at risk things like the outline algorithmn for example.

PLH: A granularity problem?

CMN: Given that, do you see an explanation of an issue being sufficient?

PLH: Suggest you talk to the chairs about this.

<chaals> ACTION: chaals to talk to HTML chairs and check whether we really need masses of work, or can just sort this out [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/06/27-html-a11y-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-185 - Talk to HTML chairs and check whether we really need masses of work, or can just sort this out [on Charles McCathie Nevile - due 2013-07-04].

<chaals> LW: Seems we are making a big deal, wouldn't it be better to ask the chairs?

JB: The original review document wasn't accessible, but Mark fixed that.

<Zakim> chaals, you wanted to say we are not being required to prove a negative. There is a requirement to show evidence of a problem. and to say I have the action item to talk to the HTML

CMN: Noted comments on document accessibility, also have taken an action to discuss work/provision of evidence etc. with the HTML WG chairs.

MS: Seems the criteria to change something from green to pink, is harder than the process to make it green in the first place.

SF: Can run some quick tests to demonstrate. Not knowing what evidence is acceptable makes that tricky though.

JB: Familiar concern from before.

CMN: We can talk until next week, we still won't know what they think.

JB: Mark's comment seems relevant to me though.

JS: The HTML call follows this, where I typically represent the TF. Chaals can you join?

any Sub-team reports

<chaals> LW: Please look at closed bugs

MS: Bug triage met yesterday. Nothing to report.

LW: Will remind everyone about the closed bugs that still need review.

updated TF work statement

CMN: A proposal for an updated statement has been made.

<MarkS> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/html-tf-draft.html

MS: We separated out the scope of work, better defined the things we're working on, revised the participation section.

CMN: Understand we need to look at this and then hold a CFC?

JB: Would need to be approved by both parent WGs.
... Appreciate the work from Mark and Chaals on this.

proposal for new

CMN: Re last agenda item, if no discussion in next few days it'll go for CFC and run for 10 days or so.

<chaals> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2013Jun/0085.html

CMN: Outlines proposed decision policy.

JS: Does the definition of 7 days include weekends?

JB: Does it make sense to capture practices that work well in other groups? 7 days may be tricky.
... One way is to tie it into who's active in the group. For example 72 hours across business hours for those active within the group.

CMN: My personal inclination, unless someone is worried about it being used unfairly, we won't have a problem.

JB: I would suggest that focusing on active members of the group would be helpful.

JS: Note, next Thursday is 4th July in the US.