HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference -- 18 Jul 2013

<trackbot> Date: 18 July 2013

<janina> Meeting: HTML Accessibility Task Force

<scribe> scribe: JF

CfC on our procedures

Chaals: sent out a CfC on new statement of work and new decision procedures

basic changes is to make things simpler

deadline for comments is Monday of next week

JS: small nit, usual term is calnedar day, and you say natural day

Chaals: same thing
... can change that. Please send an email

longdesc in Last Call

Chaals: spec is now in last call, there are only 60-something days left
... I anticipate a comment from Yandex, but will likely take another week or so - based on use-cases

DM: Seems the response has been mixed to date

JS: How do we want to proceed on the comments that have come in to date?

Chaals: wait another week or so, and then do review of comments on the list

HTML5 testing and interoperability

MS: thanks to Paul for the reply. disappointed to have the response rejected in whole
... Not sure that more time is all that will be needed to meet the criteria

JS: Lets not give up that easy

may be true, or not, but having a problem in my mind on how to prove lack of interoperability

JS: would it be more acceptable if we can state we cannot find a user-agent that supports

PC: Some kind of evidence, in particular to show, that X-scenario in a browser did not work
... Not suggesting that the TF, as author, produce test-cases that fail
... so simply testing 1 or more browsers, under x testing scenario, is better

<richardschwerdtfeger> http://html5accessibility.com/

simply stating that "you beleive it" does not meet the bar

PC: take a simple document, use a user-agent, one or more, perhaps with an AT, then explain what you did and the results

Chaals: doesn't seem to be a high bar. Sounds like you are asking for a list of things that doesn't work, but has been tested

<richardschwerdtfeger> http://html5accessibility.com/

RS: the editor (Steve) has already done some testing and showing his results at the URL provided

suspect this is based on a non-nomative passage

testing has already been done for interop

RS: If steve were to present his test cases, would that be adequate?

PC: Yes, in fact what we are hoping is that if somebody came forward with a test case that shows a fail across all browsers, then we could look to add that to the larger test suite

Chaals: How much time would it take to get steve's work ready for this?

PC: Please remember we have started the CfC for Canvas testing

if the TF comes back with a request for more time, that would likely be granted

Chaals: would that be reasonable to do quickly

MS: Steve has noted that html5accessibility requires some additional work to be updated

<David> www.html5accessibility.com/tests/ARIA-tests/

MS: In an ideal world, likely 30 days, but with holidays, etc. would likely need a bit more time

PC: Suggest that request for an extension to Sept. 1st, and prior to that, present a status report. Expect the chairs to support. Set an agressive date, and then give rope as needed

Chaals: sounds like a reasonable time-line

PC: One additional request: if you make progress, do not batch it all at the end, rather provide rolling updates

JS: Need to add a footnote. Agree with the process, but it really is different from the original marking of the process outlined in San Jose

Canvas testing and interoperability

Chaals: Short answer is, the same thing applies. We need to provide evidence of what works and what doesn't

PC: Believe it was at WG meeting last week - probably going to be more testing of canvas than other aspects of the spec

Chaals: there was a call 2 weeks ago, where Rich discussed what worked and what didn't. Some does, some doesn't, but we want to get to a point where we can have it in HTML5, but its not ready yet
... hope to have them ready and passed later, and still catch up to html5

PC: encourage the TF to follow the same process as above - provide evidence as early as possible

Rich: as I understand it, the path piece has been implemented in a browser

Chaals: issues is that we do not have enough to pass

Rich: what I really want to see is the caret selection / focus rings get done in this Recommendation

Chaals: short answer is we are in the same position. Early comments better than complete comments

JS: So we need implementers of this correct?

Rich: sent out a note to MS asking about implementation, but have not received an answer

CS: don;t believe it is in yet
... Is there a date for a dot release for canvas?

JS: this could exit for CR now minus the things that might get pulled

PC: There is already a next-gen document now

<paulc> For 5.1 schedule, refer to http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/html5-2014-plan.html

Chaals: short answer is that we need to look at interop and see what we have

knowing that there are a number of things following

<paulc> http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/CR-2dcontext-20121217/

PC: wish to point out that focus rings are not on "at risk" list

when you are in CR, 2 things that can block, testing and implementation

<MarkS> Focus rings are marked as At Risk in the implementation report: http://dev.w3.org/html5/misc/canvas-implementation.html

reason for 5.0 schedule stretches out so far is that anticipate length of time for implementation

PC: if you remove something from the Candidate Spec, you need to return to square 1

<chaals> [MarkS - but that just means "no interop yet", it isn't the same as "at risk" in the process sense]

so focus rings is not on the At Risk list

Chaals: we are where we were 2 weeks ago, so lets move on

using alternative text in HTML

Chaals: this is the changes to the HTML spec, and the guidance that it gives

Steve F has been working on that, but we do not have a published version of that yet

hope to have that available for review in a few days

note that if longdesc gets completed, we will now be able to use that as well, which will likely impact the section

<paulc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2013Jul/0019.html

PC: there is a thread (linked here) - is this the same issue?

I asked some questions on that thread, and did not receive a response

PC: Question is about status of Last Call on Alt Text techniques

JS: delay appears that we were going to finish some edits in the html5 spec first, and having those edites come into the spec document

Chaals: short answer is that we expect Steve's document to be moot.

PC: Notice Steve\s note of June 6 - states: I have added/updated the following sections in the 5.1 spec...

JS: working in the nightlies, with goal of backporting when completed

PC: Is there a tag to use that is tracking these issues?

Chaals: Will need to query steve, but he is aware of the need

PC: Want to make sure what all the steps are. Co-chairs looking for heart-beat docs to be done, and alt techniques is on the list

but no point doing that, as it is being merged into the html 5 and 5.1 docs

Chaals: I believe that if you asked the group, they would agree to that

Sub-teams?

Chaals: I know there is nothing from text sub-team, nor bugs

are there any sub-teams that have anything to report?

Chaals: I have started to look at some media stuff.

Other business (next meetings)

JS: need to look for a time to have a meeting

Chaals: have a question about meeting schedules over the next 2 weeks.

how many anticipate attendance next week?

Chaals: following week?

(JF notes that getting quorum over the next 2 weeks is do-able)

Chaals: end the meeting early?

PC: TF should expect to see a note from the admin re: extension requests

- DRAFT -

HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

18 Jul 2013

Attendees

Contents