[Minutes] HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference - Feb 10., 2011

The minutes from the 10 February 2011 HTML Accessibility Task Force
Teleconference can be accessed as hypertext from:



http://www.w3.org/2011/02/10-html-a11y-minutes.html



...and as plain text following this announcement -- as usual, please
report any errors, clarifications, mis-attributions, and the like by
replying-to this announcement on-list



JF



*****



HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

10 Feb 2011



Agenda



See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present

+1.510.367.aaaa, +1.650.468.aabb, Michael_Cooper, paulc, Eric_Carlson,
John_Foliot, Steve_Faulkner, Janina_Sajka, Jon_Gunderson, Marco_Ranon,
Rich, Cynthia_Shelly

Regrets

Léonie_Watson, Denis_Boudreau, Laura_Carlson

Chair

Janina_Sajka & Mike_Smith

Scribe

Stevef

Contents

Topics

Summary of Action Items







<trackbot> Date: 10 February 2011



<janina> Meeting: HTML-A11Y telecon



<janina> agenda: this



no review of subteam actions



GJR will get to his action item later



action 90 on m cooper not done



<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - 90



action 93 - can be closed (drag and drop)



<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - 93



<MichaelC> close action-93



<trackbot> ACTION-93 find someone to work on change proposal for drag and
drop closed



action 100 on janina unsure about what it is



<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - 100



<MichaelC> close action-100



<trackbot> ACTION-100 - talk to Laura about decoupling of "what" from
"where" in preparation for discussion in WAI CG closed



janina- its complete



modal attribute for aria action on gregory



janina: we decide we were happy with it on ARIA, only



JF: which path do we want to pursue on modal?



<MichaelC> close action-102



<trackbot> ACTION-102 - draft request for reconsideration on Issue-30
closed



MC: action on janina draft reconsideration on issue 30



http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20090126



<MichaelC> action-103: seems to favour
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20090126



<trackbot> ACTION-103 Compare our WBS results to the 5 existing change
proposals on alternative text, looking for best match. notes added



<MichaelC> close action-103



<trackbot> ACTION-103 Compare our WBS results to the 5 existing change
proposals on alternative text, looking for best match. closed



subteam reports



RS: google is implementing canvas subtree dom for chrome, will be adding
focus ring support with caret not included, we have an upcoming poll on
aria, so am working on that

... chrome was not working with main screen reader vendor, but now maki8ng
good progres, chuck pritchard is developing cnavas editor



RS; before ARIA industry went to build rich internet app, the problem we
had was because developers need to do this, they were prohibited from
selling to government, the only reason they couln't make it accessible
beacuse the ability for authors to amke it accessble



RS: hixie wants us to provide use cases for every possible use of html,
authors have busieness reasons for doing these



http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/issue-129-objection-poll/



RS: do we recommend that authors use standard controls as defined, YES,
but if the author wants to go in and do soemthing



accessibility should not be an inhibitor



cynthia: one par of his argument has merit, one of the things he struggles
with understanding, aria is fine with previous versions of \HTML, he
thjinks he has solved the problem doesn't want to confuse thinsg with non
native controls



RS: in our change proposal and in ARIA it states that authors should use
standard controls



cynthiaL: should acknowledge there is an improvement



<paulc> The survey on ISSUE-129 closes on Feb 17. Are others going to
reply to the survey?



<paulc> Steve's response is in:
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ARIAinHTML5-hixiecounter



RS: people can contribute to the group response or they can write their
own



paulc: update wiki to have support section



johngund: who decides?



paulc: chairs decide

... looking at strength of objections this is bad, but why



johngund: concept that authors have free choice isn't a strong argument?



paulc: no comment



<JF> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Feb/0205.html



JF: media, 2 issues left to resolve, 1. how to integrate multimedia
content, sylvia has posted note about this

... there are 7 proposals about how to acheive this, sense of urgency,
request for change proposal by 21st of mont



janaina: claify this is for multiple binary resources



jf: but agout identical resources

... 2 time stamp formats lining up, webvtt and SMPTE-TT, superset of
timetext langauge

... should we say anyhting further or let market forces work it out



marco: not a lot happening on the bug front



<janina>
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/InstateLongdesc#Suggested_A
lternatives_Are_Not_Viable_Solutions



janina: longdesc, theer is a lengthy proposal from laura, intended to
function as a request to reconsider longdesc



janaina: thinks its substantive, needs furtehjr tweaking



janina: thinks wai cg needs to be canvassed about this



jf: one note, epub working group looking at html5, want to wait before
developing a solution, but may bake their own if nothing comes out



paulc: won't say epub group doesn't want soultions to issues, but thinks
last call tiemframe is fine



Correct and Improve <img> Conformance Checker Guidance
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20090126



<JF> SF: People want to have a number of requirements, and don't want
others



<JF> which the second option (url posted) seems to cover most of it



<JF> there is a difference between the machine check-able content, and
then content that is not machine-checkable



<JF> (This is all related to Issue 31)



<JF> there are 3 main parts to Issue 31



<JF> guidance to validation tools



<JF> image element definition verbiage - what is the source



<JF> the normative content



<JF> 3rd issues - text alternatives and their values



http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElementSurveyConformaceC
hoices



<JF> all of this information is in the link provided by steve



<JF> JS: by memory, option 2 aligns with the consensus from this group,
WAI, etc.



<JF> JS: the second issue raised by Laura, is also covered by the WAI
consensus postion, that guidance and techniques be under the WAI



<JF> where people go to look for that kind of guidance



<JF> as opposed to where they look for machine conformance guidance



<JF> This is on the WAI CG agenda, but has not yet been discussed by that
group



<JF> but has not yet been addressed



<JF> SF: we need to decide on a time line that is acceptable to the WG
Chairs



<JF> JS: is there any opposition to splitting this out this way?



<JF> JS: seems we are on the right track here



<JF> SF: if we do agree on this as a group (or as individuals) we should
be reviewing this to ensure that we have robust arguments for the points
we are in support of



<JF> JS: this is the purpose of the survey