<trackbot> Date: 30 September 2010

<MikeSmith> trackbot, start meeting

<trackbot> Meeting: HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

<trackbot> Date: 30 September 2010

<JF> scribing to be shared by JF and GJR

<oedipus> everett, http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/wiki/Teleconference_cheat_sheet

Keyboard access requirements

<oedipus> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Access/pf_requirements_revision

<inserted> scribenick: JF

GR: wiki page is revision of requirements based on work from UAAG and tohers

<MikeSmith> oedipus, go ahead

to ensure that all requirements are met in html5

there are 9 requirements... (GJR having computer issues)

MS: while we wait for Greg, notices that there are some new bugs that have been filed on the topic of accesskeys

GJR: have been using the term of access command as it is more general than accesskey

need to ensure from W

AI perspective that the 9 requirements are met in html5

GJR listing the 9 requirements but JF unable to type that quickly - will ensure all 9 reqs are added to the transcript

9 reqs are listed at the wiki: http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Access/pf_requirements_revision

MS: are there any outstanding bugs that need to be filed against this?

GJR: need to verify that UAAG are comfortable too.

MS: asking Jeanne S about UAAG's position

JS: seems like the wiki page is complete

MS: notes wiki has been updated recently

GJR: split out as seperate issues, but also have requirments for event handler requiremetns

alos on the wiki

GJR: they are split of into a seperate page

<MikeSmith> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Access/event_handler_requirements

GJR - these come from the reqs in UAAG 2.0 - need to stress these requriements

MS: notes that these are not things to expect to be addressed by HTML5 per-se, as it does not mandate UI requirements
... falls outside of the scope of HTML5 spec - browser chrome issue

GJR: one of the reasons why these were split out

MS: need to ensure that we have bugs recorded in bugzilla to ensure that issues are tracked
... don't need full consensus from this group, but just to get them into the bugtracker

GJR: wondering if these should be submitted as individual bugs?

MS: likely yes, specificity will be important
... Chairs position is that if bugs are logged before Oct. 1 that show that we want to register a certain change as a pre-last call note

specific changes we want to see, then file now

then if further bugs are filed after Oct. 1 s clarrifications/followups after Oct. 1 then we are good to go

<Zakim> oedipus, you wanted to ask if bugs filed as follow-up after 1 october 2010 considered LC bugs?

GJR: so if we cite precious bugs after Oct. 1, then we are "safe" and this is acceptable

MS: are we in agreement with this requirements?

seems there is no dissent

follow up with Greg if anyone has comments of additions to the main bugs that Greg will be filing

MS: notes there are other bugs to discuss today

thanks

<oedipus> scribenick: oedipus

Drag and Drop

MS: want to make sure we are ok on DnD bug/issue logging?
... any new info?

EZ: gez filed 2 bugs -- activate target attribute and one to make spec text more device agnostic; hixie said i don't see the exact change you want so set bug to WONTFIX

<inserted> scribenick: JF

JF asks if we should add the tracker issue keyword?

MS: perhaps we need to try providing the sample text - if editor moves it back to WONTFIX then we can exscalate to tracker issue
... seems that with the 2 bugts, we are OK with DnD
... if hixie is not open to further dialog then we can accellerate this
... are all bases covered re: bugs

<MikeSmith> jeanne, thanks!

MS: are there any other issues that we need to raise, that we've not yet discussed, before Oct 1

EZ: thinks it would be highly useful for a tooltip attribute

wants to ask about this

EZ: might be better to have a specific tooltip attribute, then we can specify it better

MS: worth raising as a bug, yes
... likely response is that it's late in the game, but if not now, when?
... encourages EZ to raise the bug
... be sure to note the differences beteen this an @title
... this might be an element too

(+1 from JF)

MS: if there are any other similar types of issues, even if we've not discussed this before, then file the bug

does not require the support of the TTF

MS: no restricition on individuals filing bugs

sub-team reports

<MikeSmith> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/index.php?title=Media_Accessibility_Checklist&action=history

<MikeSmith> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_Accessibility_Checklist

<oedipus> scribenick:

<MikeSmith> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_Accessibility_Checklist#Technical_Requirements_Prioritizations_and_Dependencies

<inserted> scribenick: oedipus

JF: further refined reqs beyond what ATAG and UAAG require
... must, should, may --- 1 person's take (JF's)
... tried to determine how to provide guidance to implementors
... effort to give good guidance as they start to roll out implementations
... we would like to hjave a straw poll in TF to review MAC -- especially must,should wording and ATAG and UAAG reqs
... reviewing the three pieces of text want to get into media elements
... Janina sent request to public-html
... we believe is useful to bring some WHAT WG text into the W3C HTML spec
... javascripting -- non-controversial, so want to get into w3c spec
... rendering -- specific timestamp format -- asking editors to sanitize text from WHAT WG to strip from specific technology (WebSRT in WHAT WG) but need placeholder text in w3c spec; use that to compare diff timestamp formats, so as to find out which meets our reqs
... will be gathering evidence for each timestamp option -- if any one works but has shortcomings, we will be happy to provide suggestions

MS: straw poll?

JF: yes

MS: need a little more info on questions on straw poll will be?

JF: will do today

MS: info from poll will be used to create followup bugs
... can't perfect all bugs before 1 october 2010 deadline

JF: will be sending note to HTML WG chairs today -- want to get all ducks in a row before discussion of specific technological options; no text in W3C spec that address these 3 issues
... going to seek clarification on that from HTML WG chairs

Canvas

MS: quick assesment on canvas in prep for LC?

RS: had a number of proposals; trying to distill down what we need to do
... first thing (need a vote to close) - accessible dom proposal that allowed canvas subtree to support keyboard and a11y services
... HTML5 today pretty much uses the "adom" strategy -- need to ascertain if this is the only strategy being considered

<kliehm> Canvas proposals: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Sep/0225.html

RS: second: if don't want to navigate subtree but only behavior canvas elicits in subtree, can close that one -- this is behavior of canvas sub-tree and close 2 proposals; IE9 allows one to navigate the subtree -- filed bug for FF

<MikeSmith> MikeSmith: so we may want to have a straw poll to the group to survey agreement about closing out the "adom" and "nonav" proposals

<JF> +1 to MS

RS: once those are done; how do we then drive magnification and show visual focus; have subtree but no way to map telemagnifier so that caret can be tracked; direct 2D on windows skips drawing calls and goes straight to hardware, so at can't get into the canvas element
... proposal to report caret position, blink rate, selection position to drive magnifier through api that does this -- problem: editor responded that people need drawing calls -- filed 2 bugs on that, but editor said this is too much work - no one will use canvas to do text editing; don't agree -- when people start to cloud compute, will use canvas as word processor

<MikeSmith> Bespin

<JF> JF picks up scribing

<inserted> scribenick: JF

RS: there has been a lot of arguing - editor does not want to add these APIs

but we cannot leave the whole

Rich will work to tie this to drawing calls

MS: supports the strategy - spending time talking with implementors is more valuable than trying to educate those who do not have a direct stake in the issue
... getting feedback from moz and MS makes good sense

RS: let's get something that works and move forward

MS: have discussed with Chairs - still in the process of these big issues - likely that there will be clarrification bugs moving forward
... does not believe that we need to worry about the Oct. 1 deadline here, as these are issues we have been working on prior to Oct. 1
... so we just need to ensure that there is nothing brand new
... but for ongoing work, there should be no issues
... Anything about ARIA mappings?

RS: notes that there is a lot of resistance to addressing things authors are doing today

again we're going through a number of rounds with the editor (i.e role of image being image)

RS: anticipates a number of escalations, as the editor seems to be contrary
... even when we put out examples, editor ignores them

so no point arguing back and forth, will just elevate them

RS: cyns has published an API mapping document last week

MS: last item, open action items

<MikeSmith> ACTION:63? [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/09/30-html-a11y-minutes.html#action01]

<MikeSmith> action-63?

<trackbot> ACTION-63 -- Silvia Pfeiffer to create a bug on Content navigation by content structure -- due 2010-09-29 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/63

<MikeSmith> action-64?

<trackbot> ACTION-64 -- Silvia Pfeiffer to file a bug on HTML 5 for Content Navigation by Content Structure due 20101001 -- due 2010-09-29 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/64

JF: believes those bugs can be closed, will double check and follow up with MCooper

MS: any other issues?

<MikeSmith> [adjourned]

<oedipus> s/ACTION: 63? [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/09/30-html-a11//

<oedipus> trackbot, drop action 1

<trackbot> Sorry, oedipus, I don't understand 'trackbot, drop action 1'. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135  of Date: 2009/03/02 03:52:20  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/Draf and Drop/Drag and Drop/
WARNING: Bad s/// command: s/ACTION: 63? [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/09/30-html-a11//
Succeeded: i/GR: wiki page is revision/scribenick: JF
Succeeded: i/JF asks if we should add the tracker issue/scribenick: JF
Succeeded: s/JF: got 2 documents tha/scribenick: oedipus/
Succeeded: i/RS: there has been a lot of arguing/scribenick: JF
Succeeded: s/oedipust we believe are ready to be used -- first user requriments - more important is Media Accessibility Checklist - went trhough all reqs and mapped to ATAG and UAAG Level A and Level AA//
Succeeded: i/JF: further refined reqs /scribenick: oedipus
Succeeded: s/trackbot, status//
Found ScribeNick: JF
Found ScribeNick: oedipus
Found ScribeNick: JF
Found ScribeNick: 
Found ScribeNick: oedipus
Found ScribeNick: JF
Inferring Scribes: JF, oedipus, 
Scribes: JF, oedipus, 
ScribeNicks: JF, oedipus, 
Default Present: Gregory_Rosmaita, +1.650.468.aaaa, John_Foliot, +49.179.103.aabb, Mike, Michael_Cooper, Everett_Zufelt, kliehm, Jeanne, +44.154.558.aacc, Sean_Hayes, Rich, [Microsoft]
Present: Cynthia_Shelly Everett_Zufelt Gregory_Rosmaita Jeanne John_Foliot Michael_Cooper Mike_Smith Rich Sean_Hayes [Microsoft] kliehm
Regrets: Marco_Ranon Laura_Carlson Kenny_Johar Sylvia_Pfieffer Joshue_O'Connor Janina_Sajka
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Sep/0677.html
Found Date: 30 Sep 2010
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2010/09/30-html-a11y-minutes.html
People with action items: 63

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