See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 12 December 2013
<janina> Meeting: HTML-A11Y Task Force Teleconference
<scribe> scribe: chaals
<janina> Thanks, C!
JS: We will meet next week, 19 December, but not 26 Dec or 2 Jan. We will resume meetings on 9 Jan.
JS: We agreed last week to restart the canvas subteam. Do you plan to use the TF list or the canvas subteam one?
<MarkS> Canvas Meeting information
RS: Have been talking about scrolling and I am writing proposals for it. We have a meeting schedule 6pm Boston time on Monday (2300Z)
<paulc> What list is being used? is it public-canvas-api@w3.org?
MS: What list was used previously? I had expected to use the TF list.
RS: We have been using mailto:public-canvas-api@w3.org
PC: I think you added people to the list. But not Mark.
<richardschwerdtfeger> Canvas <public-canvas-api@w3.org>
RS: Correct. Whoops, bad assumption.
<paulc> For example: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-canvas-api/2013OctDec/0030.html
JS: We have another CfC running, on whether we agree to pushing drawCustomFocusRing(element) from level 1.
PC: That CfC closes tomorrow. I guess it would affect at least 2 open bugs. Do we assume passing it will close the bugs?
JS: We would defer the bugs at least.
PC: Right, that was what I meant to ask :)
... they would not affect the Level 1. I recommend we empower the sub-team to do so.
RS: Sounds good.
PC: I want the sub-team to deal with bugs as fast as possible. See no reason to delay that work by going through HTML-WG.
JS: Where are we on the guidance in the HTML spec
... believe TF and WCAG has agreed on what we want.
SF: There are some bugs to be dealt with, but nothing major. There is one bug waiting for feedback from the TF, about logos and what we should say about them.
... My response is there is no formal agreed advice on that. If we are going to define a best practice, WAI needs to have a formal agreed decision we can refer to.
[chaals: +1 to what Steve is thinking]
JS: I wonder if we should create 2 examples, one just being used as a logo, and another one with the same image linking to the home page, with alt varying according to context.
SF: Sure. There is a section on logos - it would be good to comment on that.
<SteveF> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/embedded-content-0.html#logos,-insignia,-flags,-or-emblems
JS: The first example that comes up should be the simplest case, and I don't think it is at the moment.
SF: I'll check that. There are things that need to be done, but don't think there is any major work.
... the WHATWG has also added examples, so I have added some more into HTML 5.1 spec. I'll send them to the TF for review.
... I also added an example for image maps, which affects resolution of an outstanding bug. Got some feedback, and going to improve the example and ask for further review.
... (It is about getting alt right for the image and for each area in the map)
<paulc> PC: Will any of the examples be candidates for being added to HTML5 CR? If so will you file bugs to track those changes?
SF: Yes.
PC: Will you file bugs to track those changes?
SF: Yes.
JS: Our intent is to get it right for 5.1 and fold that back to 5.0 - what is the process for that?
PC: We need to inform the director about changes we have made in CR. Plan 2014 predicts going back to Last Call, but think we should track changes by raising bugs. If they are marked as editorial, or are examples, that's fine.
SF: Gotcha, can do.
... HTML5 techniques document needs work too. Need to edit it to conform in style and substance with HTML5 spec. Remove normative requiremnts, etc. Then it would be ready to publish as a Note.
... Need to think about the future of that document.
JS: Interest in coordinating that with other stuff being done in WAI.
SF: I am happy to let anyone else take it up.
<paulc> What is the current status of work on HTML a11y APIs (editor: Steve Faulkner, Cynthia Shelly)?
PC: In the last 4-5 months the HTML accessibility APIs doc has regressed from 47 − 55 bugs. Is there anything going on with that?
SF: Yes, there is. I am expecting significant change to that.
JS: We expect to move that as a normative doc in 5.1 timeframe.
PC: OK, that's useful to know. Trying to understand who is working on it. If we do heartbeats early in January is there active work happening on it?
JS: Intend to coordinate it with several other docs. There will be a f2f meeting in Toronto 23-5 Jan where we expect to work on it.
... The focus is on ARIA 1.1, HTML 5.1, SVG 2. This document is part of that work.
... So expect more attention to it in that meeting.
CS: This is one of the things at the top of my list to get time for...
RS: I'm going to try and put some outlines on the PF wiki to give people a better sense of how these documents fit together.
<richardschwerdtfeger> ack
JS: Changes so far are relatively minor - more change expected later in the year
JS: We have a couple of bugs. Dealt with a big one on Monday, there are two more we should be looking at.
... bugs 371, 380 - in the agenda.
RS: OK.
<aardrian> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23371 Bug 23371
<aardrian> -> Bug 23380
SF: We have resolved 371 (??)
... We agreed with the comment on 23371 - ARIA hidden cannot override hidden. I have been testing this and it does override in some screen readers, but not others.
... Marco Zehe started trying to sort this out in Mozilla's implementation
... asked Alex to provide comments on the bug. There doesn't seem to be consensus on it yet.
RS: Can Alex attend the ARIA call on MOnday?
JS: Let's see if we can get him there.
RS: We opened it on the request of a couple of people who are not actually showing up.
SF: For Bug 23380 I think I made some changes, but I need to have a look and see what I did.
... the questions is what happens when you have e.g. aria:required without a strong native "required" semantic applied (e.g. you just used a marker in the content, not the HTML required attribute.)
... need to check that this doesn't break anything.
RS: An author could code it that way.
SF: The question is whether the spec text reflects that reality properly. If it says you mustn't do things that people really will do, we should change the spec.
... Think it is fine, but it could do with a review.
... don't think this is a bug blocking anything else, just some work to do.
JS: Anyone got comments re bug 19277?
JS: Shortly trying to go to CR. I got suggested language out, and we have a CfC to check that we are happy with that.
<janina> Janina's proposal
PLH: What is your expectation regarding timing and the outcome?
<paulc> See https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23661#c2
CMN: Timing is intended to allow us to request an editorial change, as the resolution of our comment.
PC: Why make the comment on MSE not HTML5?
CMN: Because in MSE it explicitly talks about 1 and we want to make it clear there are important accessibility cases for allowing more than 1 video track.
JS: MSE talks about audio tracks, but only 1 track.
PC: The comment on the bug notes that HTML5 doesn't define the use case and it should be defined there first.
<paulc> See https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23661#c2
CMN: Fully agree that this should be done for HTML5 as well, but it seems that there is greater urgency for MSE.
PC: Concerned that there will be pushback from the editors.
CMN: Sure. We have attempted to provide a rational compromise, allowing MSE to go ahead of HTML5 - and not add formal requirements that makes people's lives harder.
PC: I am concerned that the MSE task force will suggest we are targeting the wrong place.
JS: We are only asking for an informative note - there is no request here fora formal requirement.
PC: OK, I'll try to make sure the MSE task force gets that.
<scribe> ACTION: chaals to raise a bug on HTML5 to clarify that sign language videos are an important accessibility use case for multiple video tracks. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/12/12-html-a11y-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-221 - Raise a bug on html5 to clarify that sign language videos are an important accessibility use case for multiple video tracks. [on Charles McCathie Nevile - due 2013-12-19].
PC: How will this get communicated?
JS: The A11y TF has started a CfC that will resolve Tuesday (meeting process requirements but shorter than desirable)
CMN: I'll communicate the results as soon as our CfC closes, and will add a comment to the bug. I also took an action to raise a parallel issue on HTML5
PC: MSE meets before the CfC closes, and may make decisions without taking teh result in account.
PLH: As I as I know, we only have only implementation of mediaGroup, so multi tracks support might be an issue in 2014
JS: Sure, we need more implementations. But not all for a primary media resource.
CMN: Sure. There are at least 2 implementations being built in Australia, one by AccessibleOz and one by the Australian Government.
ST: In terms of looking for implementations are you also looking for content examples?
[YES PLEASE]
JS: Need to decide whether to publish this as a standalone, or get it to CR and ask for intergration in HTML.
... we expect to start a CfC on that next week, and expect it to be a topic during the meeting.
<MarkS> CN: The editors know what needs to be done.
<MarkS> ...we will be doing this work over the next days and are meeting today to form a plan.
<MarkS> ...My preference is to propose this as a PR to Rec, Done.
<MarkS> ...That give HTML plenty of time to decide if they would like to integrate extension specs
<MarkS> ...that plan won't leave us with a spec in limbo
JS: Any comments, thoughts?
<MarkS> ...Hope to have a CfC to determine consensus on this by next meeting.
MS: With low bug volume we have moved to monthly meetings, and December's is next week.
[Adjourned]