W3C

- DRAFT -

HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

03 Apr 2014

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
Sam, Mark_Sadecki, [Microsoft], janina, chaals, LJWatson, Rich_Schwerdtfeger, [IPcaller], PaulC, Judy, BillyGregory, Plh, Cynthia_Shelly
Regrets
Chair
Chaals
Scribe
Léonie Watson

Contents


<trackbot> Date: 03 April 2014

<paulc> See additional possible agenda items in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2014Apr/0012.html

<scribe> scribe: Léonie Watson

<scribe> scribenick : LJWatson

Any other business

canvas

MS: Discussed whether id and control would be required options, settled on requiring neither.
... Clearing hit regions has been added to spec.
... Not a good idea to refer to pointer events yet. Came to resolution that Canvas will handle events for 1.0
... Believe that in two weeks we should have a stable draft, ready to go back to LC.

PC: I'm concerned this is "just two more weeks" and "just two more weeks". Chairs are losing patience.
... Can you give me a rationale for why more time is needed?

MS: We have cycles of review/feedback. New issues are arising, and we're handling them as quickly as possible. Understand you have a timeline.

PC: Can we deal with those in LC?

<rubys> (11:09:08 AM) LJWatson: MS: Fell that in two weeks we should have a stable draft, ready to go back to LC.

<rubys> (11:10:18 AM) LJWatson: PC: I'm concerned this is "just two more weeks" and "just two more weeks". Chairs are losing patience.

CMN: That's not what LC claims to be.

PC: There are no open bugs on this spec right now.
... Will talk to my co-chairs.

CMN: Canvas is still changing stuff, so question is should this hold up LC indefinitely?
... If we go to LC with some issues unresolved, does that cause problems?

RS: Reason for last couple of weeks delay was Hixie dumping things into the WATWG spec. We think we're close to dealing with that now.

MS: Agreed.

RS: Just need our second implementation and clean things up.

PLH: That sounds like LC.

RS: Can we go to LC with edotorial?

<paulc> See Sam's request in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2014Mar/0072.html about a second implementation.

MS: Jay has been editing, changes discussed on Monday seem to have been done.

RS: Just waiting for a blessing?

MS: Right.

JS: Thought there was a discussion to be had about pointer events?

MS: It was discussed/researched and it's not a good idea.

<paulc> Quoting from Sam's request: the HTML WG chairs are asking that the two planned interoperable implementations of this feature be identified at this time.

PC: Email asked whether there was a second implementation. There isn't, correct?

RS: Correct.

PC: So hit regions would be at risk?

RS: Yes.

MS: Agree, but makes me nervous.

RS: We can get the second implementation in Webkit or from MS.

PC: How does the TF want to decide this?
... The chairs can ask editors to produce a stable draft and we'll run a CFC?

PLH: Is this a TF doc?

PC: We have the F2F next week, no meeting on Monday, is it appropriate for the editors to ask the 1.0 editors right now, or do you need a couple of days?

MS: I can co-ordinate with the editors today and close of any outstanding items.

PC: Mark, could you send an email to the chairs informing us when a stable draft is ready?

MS: OK.

PC: Sam you ok with this?

SR: Sure.

CMN: Questions?

PLH: The duration of the last call? What's after that?
... Also timeframe for second implementation?

<paulc> I suggest the LC period be 3 weeks.

MS: We'll need feedback from implementors.

RS: Best thing would be MS/IE to implement.

PLH: Sounds like a four week LC followed by a non-zero CR giving time to work through implementation?

CMN: Sounds correct.

ALT guidance

<paulc> I can live with 4 weeks LC period

MS: Discussion about adding link to the HTML5 spec that will point to alt guidance doc.
... Bug hasn't been filed yet, waiting for approval from members of WAI about landing page content. Expect to file bug in next few hours.

<paulc> See also http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2014Mar/0086.html

MS: Steve thinks he can do the editorial change very quickly.

<paulc> "I believe with this information the A11Y TF can now decide if they are willing to declare the work on the Alt Guidance specification [1] to be done "

JB: To ensure reliability of the landing page content, we have had EO and WCAG looking at it. Also wanted the TF to look at changes on that page.
... Would like to get informal agreement on that here.

<paulc> ... quote from 0086.html "If the TF agrees then I recommend that the TF ask the WG to discontinue work on the WD by publishing the content as a WG Note with an appropriate SOTD to indicate how the problems identified in the original WD were dealt with."

CMN: We can add that to the TF agenda.

JB: Yes, but don't want to delay things.

<chaals> ACTION: chaals to ensure that review of Alt guidance page (not in the HTML spec) is on the TF agenda [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/04/03-html-a11y-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-238 - Ensure that review of alt guidance page (not in the html spec) is on the tf agenda [on Charles McCathie Nevile - due 2014-04-10].

PC: Message 86 in the March archives... Editors and TF now believes guidance from alt guidance has been merged into 5.0 and 5.1. Think it's time the TF reviewed and agreed to that.

<chaals> ACTION: chaals to put a review of the HTML Alt guidance on the agenda, and call for consensus to stop work on the original guidance note [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/04/03-html-a11y-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-239 - Put a review of the html alt guidance on the agenda, and call for consensus to stop work on the original guidance note [on Charles McCathie Nevile - due 2014-04-10].

table summary

MS: An old 5.0 bug. We've resolved to close it and open a new bug in 5.1. Still discussing/researching examples.

CMN: For 5.1?

MS: Correct.

longdesc

CMN: Haven't done this yet. Unhappy it's taken so long, but it has.
... Anyone feel we shouldn't be prioritising things with HTML5.0?

Bug 25135 - summary. Status?

<paulc> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25135

MS: New bug filed on details/summary. To do with interactive content within the summary element, that would conflict with default behaviour of focusing on summary to open/close the details.
... Steve believes he has a resolution that would not involve a major change to the spec. Think he posted some comments today.

PC: None there.

<MarkS> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25140#c14

MS: Perhaps on the related bug.
... Right now only Chrome has a stable implementation of details/summary. Curious what happens if HTML5 goes to CR and this is at risk, then there is a last minute implementation, even though there are issues with the definition.

<paulc> CR bug for at risk features: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24812

PC: There is an open CR bug covering at risk features. Will make sure it's dicussed next week at the F2F. Chair's objective is to have a doc published that has no bugs or at risk features.
... If you want to comment about an at risk feature, should make it in this bug.
... If we cut a feature because not enough implementation, it'll still be in 5.1.

PLH: We're also going to discuss the timeline at the F2F.

CMN: If something is at risk because it has problems, bugs need to be filed.

<paulc> I agree with Charles' rationale for removing at risk features ie not yet implemented, implementers having trouble implementing the feature, ...

User Agent Implementation Guide, coordination.

PC: Lots of emails about plans, working draft hasn't been updated in a long time, you have a great plan, but you haven't informed the HTMLWG that the plan is in place.

RS: I can do that.

JS: This will be an important doc for PF. We intend that it will be normative in the 5.1 timeframe.
... In the last two weeks we've done more than plan, we've made decisions about structure and co-ordination. There is more co-ordination that we need to schedule.
... Not so sure we're behind, or not doing due dilligence.

CMN: It sounds like a heads up to the HTML WG is what's needed.

<paulc> Richard's email http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2014Mar/0014.html goes to SVG WG, PF WG and TF. i am simply asking that this kind of content be sent to the HTML WG.

PC: Just asking for Rich's email content to be sent to the HTML WG too.

JB: Janina was explaining the status.

CMN: Rich you ok to take an action to do this?

JS: Happy for it to be Rich.

RS: I'll do it after the call.

<chaals> ACTION: Rich to inform HTML WG about the current plans for User Agent Implementation Guide [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/04/03-html-a11y-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Error creating an ACTION: could not connect to Tracker. Please mail <sysreq@w3.org> with details about what happened.

CS: Is this an example of using the TF as a proxy for the HTML WG?

PC: All I'm asking is that the WG be given a short explanation of how this excellent plan is going to impact one of it's 12 deliverables.

<chaals> zkim, close this item

HTML F2F meeting

next call

Assuming there will be a call next week?

<MarkS> regrets from me. will be flying

<paulc> Paul will be available

<chaals> chaals, janina available

LW: Available.

CMN: We'll proceed with the call.

<richardschwerdtfeger> RS: Regrets for the next 2 weeks. I am on vacation

<chaals> [adjourned]

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: chaals to ensure that review of Alt guidance page (not in the HTML spec) is on the TF agenda [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/04/03-html-a11y-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: chaals to put a review of the HTML Alt guidance on the agenda, and call for consensus to stop work on the original guidance note [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/04/03-html-a11y-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: Rich to inform HTML WG about the current plans for User Agent Implementation Guide [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/04/03-html-a11y-minutes.html#action03]
 
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.138 (CVS log)
$Date: 2014-04-03 15:51:07 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.138  of Date: 2013-04-25 13:59:11  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/Fell/Believe/
Succeeded: s/four week LC/four week LC followed by a non-zero CR giving time to work through implementation/
Succeeded: s/Sounds ok/Sounds correct/
Found Scribe: Léonie Watson
Found ScribeNick: LJWatson
Default Present: Sam, Mark_Sadecki, [Microsoft], janina, chaals, LJWatson, Rich_Schwerdtfeger, [IPcaller], PaulC, Judy, BillyGregory, Plh, Cynthia_Shelly
Present: Sam Mark_Sadecki [Microsoft] janina chaals LJWatson Rich_Schwerdtfeger [IPcaller] PaulC Judy BillyGregory Plh Cynthia_Shelly
Found Date: 03 Apr 2014
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2014/04/03-html-a11y-minutes.html
People with action items: chaals rich

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.


[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]