HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference -- 11 Nov 2010

<MikeSmith> trackbot, start meeting

<trackbot> Date: 11 November 2010

<janina> Meeting: HTML-A11Y telecon

<janina> Chair: Janina_Sajka

<janina> agenda: this

<oedipus> scribenick: oedipus

<scribe> scribe: Gregory_Rosmaita

Identify Scribe

Actions Review

ACTION-194: The definition of img should be: The image given by the src attribute is the embedded content; the value of the alt attribute provides equivalent content for those who cannot process images or who have image loading disabled.

<trackbot> Sorry... adding notes to ACTION-194 failed, please let sysreq know about it

ACTION-195: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/purely_decorative_images

<trackbot> Sorry... adding notes to ACTION-195 failed, please let sysreq know about it

JS: propose we skip today

<MikeSmith> action-74?

<trackbot> ACTION-74 -- Steve Faulkner to update change proposal on bug 10592 (was HTML WG action 197) -- due 2010-11-12 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/74

MC: been collating and organizing actions that arose out of TPAC and separating sub-team issues
... migrated ones picked up by HTML tracker

<trackbot> Sorry... adding notes to ACTION-194 failed, please let sysreq know about it

<paulc> The WG list of actions looks better now: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/open

The definition of img should be: The image given by the src attribute is the embedded content; the value of the alt attribute provides equivalent content for those who cannot process images or who have image loading disabled.

GJR: The definition of img should be: The image given by the src attribute is the embedded content; the value of the alt attribute provides equivalent content for those who cannot process images or who have image loading disabled.

JS: please file as change proposal

GJR: will do

ACTION-195 fulfillment http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/purely_decorative_images

Identify Scribe

<richardschwerdtfe> scribe: Rich

TPAC Report

<inserted> scribenick: richardschwedtfe

<inserted> scribenick: richardschwerdtfe

janina: we had an action packed week
... lots of action items

<oedipus> http://www.w3.org/2010/11/04-html-wg-minutes.html

<oedipus> http://www.w3.org/2010/11/04-html-wg2-minutes.html

janina: the HTML WG meeting was 2 days in 2 rooms with lots of discussion. The minutes gregory just posted
... there was major activity in media

<oedipus> note that the each of the minutes from HTML WG sessions contains 2-days' worth of minutes

janina: there were many positive things expected for accessibility that I focused on in the plenary.
... aria mappings, etc. many highlights
... Any questions before going into detail?
... is everett on the call?
... will postpone issues 134 and 133 as he is not available now

issue 122

<oedipus> ACTION-195 fulfillment http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/purely_decorative_images

janina: we actioned someone for a different example.

oedipus: I am going to come up with a proposal for truly decorative images

<oedipus> HTML5 section 4.8.1.1.7

oedipus: redraft this section

<oedipus> Exceptions to this rule, in cases where CSS cannot be used to display an entirely decorative image, are covered by the HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives. [HTML ALT TECHS] Authors are also encouraged to consult the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 for more detailed information and acceptable techniques. [WCAG 2.0]

oedipus: I decided that the best way forward was to take the first part and then take the second paragraph. Rather than take the Lady of Chalotte example the wisest thing is to remove this example and rather than state in the HTML 5 spec. what to do with decorative images. ... Rather than go into a discussion on what to do in the case where an image is truly decorative to point to the HTML alt text and wcag for exceptable techniques

<oedipus> ACTION-195 change propsal: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/purely_decorative_images

<JF> +1 to this Greg

janina: we should consider this quickly
... getting the proposal together is obviously the priority
... we should finalize this discussion next week

<oedipus> GJR: one thing that might need addition is to state that images defined using CSS cannot be annotated (@alt, @labelledby)

oedipus: if it is truly decorative and part of sitewise design use CSS
... there is a second paragraph of exceptions to the rule

<oedipus> cyns: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/purely_decorative_images

oedipus. are there are peer sections that discuss decorative images?

cynthia: are there are peer sections that discuss decorative images?

oedipus: will look

Issue 80

<oedipus> ACTION-195: GJR to add note about CSS image annotation; review other sections of HTML5 draft to ensure that all information about use of alt text and its usage have been removed and ported to the HTML5 Alt Techs document

<trackbot> Sorry... adding notes to ACTION-195 failed, please let sysreq know about it

janina: we look at this again and the resolution was that no change to the previous guidance. We should stick to previous guidance
... title should not be treated as an alternative to alt

<oedipus> plus 1 to a resolution to reconfirm guidance

rich: so alt should be given precedence to title for accessible name computation?

janina: yes

<oedipus> plus 1 to a resolution to reconfirm guidance

Resolution: title should not be treated a replacement for alt on images.
... title should not be treated a replacement for alt on images.

<janina> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Apr/

michael: the url is just an index of messages

Issue 31

janina: this is the primary place holder for alt text in the spec.
... we tried to separate conformance checking from guidance
... we came up with two sets of recommendations on both. In the case of conformance I asked Laura to combine two recommendations
... We thought the recommendations was to take the recommendation on alt or to keep as in HTML 4 or to keep as is in the spec. today
... I sent an email to Laura and it was unclear what the differences were between 2 and 4
... the labelledby is part of 2
... can you explain you you see the difference
... I am not sure where to go with this

<oedipus> laura: change proposals regarding missing alt and conformance: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Nov/0095.html

cynthia: I thought our goal was to reduce the number of proposals in Leone
... if we can't understand all the proposals there is no way the working group will

janina: if we combine 2 and 4 regarding the labelledby

cynthia: more clear is a good thing

janina: I can do that
... our advice to drop the other proposals would be good?

cynthia: I agree it is too complicated
... only 3 proposals be reviewed by the chairs

janina: any objection?
... we are on the verge of reconfirming the concensus in the room
... will finalize next week in the meeting?

<oedipus> plus 1 to CfC

cynthia: can we do this earlier as they are concerned about time

RESOLUTION: Regarding Issue 31 is to conduct a survey on 3 change proposals: keep it the same as in HTML 4; do nothing; implement the WAI consensus guidelines

janina: I will look at this later today
... we had recommended that we keep the wai concensus guidelines

keyboard access

oedipus: Thanks to the bug triage team. They have identified a single master bug based on the access command requirements
... we should ping you when?

janina: we should ping you when?

oedipus: next week

Accessibility of Forms in the spec

janina: gregory asked to postpone for a week

canvas

<inserted> ScribeNick: oedipus

RS: re-starting monday calls for canvas to investigate rich text editing -- separated out reqs for using standard controls using APIs -- will address in change proposal
... plan: asked to create individual defects related to RTE -- what needs to be done as far as API changes to 2D context standard controls to define wwhich elements are allowable in canvas sub-tree -- 1st time that used shadow DOM to navigate but not render -- some issues need to be investigated about it -- what constitutes fallback and how to keep in sync
... Rich Text Editing -- will take a lot of time; need to ensure that what is in contenteditable section can be reflected in a CANVAS implementation -- can't do now -- those are the issues we are working on
... re-iterate PaulC's comment -- in mobile TV space, comment made "what would you need for a profile"? canvas + javascript would hit the "sweet spot" -- must address a11y in RTE because Canvas might be only UI one can see in complex apps

CS: frankO on board with that?

RS: yes
... which "that"?

CS: anything to do with RTE

RS: said need to define where gaps are -- didn't think could do by last call

PC: that is fair portrayal -- FrankO's warning was "this is not a trivial pursuit -- it will take a lot of effort"

JS: messages have to be clear -- enough complexity in proposed text
... questions?

MK: talked with FrankO -- inside canvas doubled testing effort -- concern: prevent double texting

RS: doubletexting of.... ?
... components not being rendered will double?

MK: yes, concern was that testing efforts have to be doubled because have 2 diff contexts

RS: don't see how can reduce -- there is content now that is not being rendered -- going to be a lot of work

MK: so there will be some pain for everyone?

RS: yes -- trying to ensure that address all of the canvas issues -- spec allows shadow DOM -- in spec -- needs to be synced with what is in visual rendering

<kliehm> s/concern: double testing/concern: double testing/

RS: next step: make sure that when have shadow DOM what is appropriate behavior of UA in HTML -- how to render IFrame in shadow DOM -- rendering issues -- is CSS allowed
... need to flesh out shadow DOM in HTML5 spec

PC: said starting up sub-team
... what is relative priority of that work taking resources away from other important a11y work

RS: think done with ARIA in HTML5 work -- should fiinish in few weeks
... not working on media stuff because i have canvas and ARIA on my plate -- heard FrankO getting involved in media
... FrankO might be critical resource for both efforts

PC: one of my concerns as WG chair, have to have "greeedy algorithm" -- December 8 for editors; ChangeProposals: February 23, 2011
... want to ensure that don't get to january 23rd and have people say "hey, can't make deadline for LC"
... want to provide perspective -- will have to perform balancing act

RS: appreciate concern -- trying to get ARIA to CR using same core group of people

PC: where are we with a11y issues and what is schedule for doing work assigned at F2F
... by first week in december, would like to have a TF report in 3 weeks to say this is where TF putting resources to meet 23 February 2011 date

RS: february 23?

PC: 23 February 2011 is deadline for all change proposals for escalated problems
... chairs negotiating with editors about 8 December 2010 date -- number of bugs being closed reather quickly -- some have already been decided; editors are processing LC bugs at same time
... for a11y, always have to have "this is when change proposals need to be done" target in our minds
... why we dedicated a lot of time to a11y issues at HTML WG F2F at TPAC

JS: ARIA mappings pretty close to complete?

RS: in terms of aria integration, yes; a11y mapping will take longer

JS: ARIA mapping for HTML5

RS: should be finished next week

CS: due next week so it will be done

RS: at that point chairs will have to make decisions -- once done, will be major win for a11y

JS: will free up time -- sub-team may go back on hiatus again depending on circumstances

RS: david bolter offered to work on mapping, a plus
... mapping not limited to ARIA< but whole HTML5 spec

JS: API mappings, yes
... no spec or last call implications on API mappings

RS: need to get it done
... i will be working with some AT vendors in 2011 on HTML5 support -- AT vendor support issue we haven't yet addressed

<richardschwerdtfe> scribe: Rich

media

<paulc> leaving now to get ready for the WG meeting

<JF> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Nov/0066.html

<JF> URL = Franks catagorization

<scribe> scribenick: richardschwerdtfe

janina: A few people got incensed. We took a path on categorizing the issues. most of these were user agents some were spec related.
... The timed text specification was going to move to a new working group that HTML could possibly reference
... the reduced the change proposal to 9
... the media subteam is taking this approach under advisement. The general subtext was is this is a good approach
... we are talking about a gap analysis. We sheduled a long meeting for next wednesday
... more developments going forward on this

group: nothing left out

Bugs

martin: howework for next week is embedded content
... all that content needs to be available to assistive technologies. What about object, SVG, etc. that also contain embedded content
... we will see if other elements require accessible work like canvas
... we talk to the task force about the results after Thanksgiving
... there is a range of other bugs other than the fallback content

janina: how many bugs

martin: there 23 the task force needs to keep an eye on.
... there were 50 bugs with the a11yTF keyword

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

janina: any questions for martin?

<oedipus> thanks to martin and the bug-triage team -- have made my life a lot easier!

janina; ok are past teh hour

- DRAFT -

HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

11 Nov 2010

Attendees

Contents

Identify Scribe

Actions Review

Identify Scribe

TPAC Report

issue 122

Issue 80

Issue 31

keyboard access

Accessibility of Forms in the spec

canvas

media

Bugs

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output