19:19:17 RRSAgent has joined #cg 19:19:17 logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/01/19-cg-irc 19:19:26 chair: Judy 19:19:37 zakim, this will be WAI_CG 19:19:37 ok, Judy; I see WAI_CG()2:30PM scheduled to start in 11 minutes 19:19:42 chair: Judy 19:29:53 janina has joined #cg 19:30:14 zakim, call janina 19:30:14 ok, janina; the call is being made 19:30:15 WAI_CG()2:30PM has now started 19:30:17 +Janina 19:30:56 +Jeanne_Spellman 19:31:03 jeanne has joined #cg 19:31:12 +Judy 19:32:04 MichaelC has joined #cg 19:32:18 +Michael_Cooper 19:32:28 Jan has joined #cg 19:33:07 agenda+ Report on HCG Audio Discussion http://www.w3.org/2011/01/14-hcg-minutes.html 19:33:07 agenda+ Realtime Communications WG -- Who can we send? 19:33:07 agenda+ Rethinking ARIA's Value 19:33:07 agenda+ Preparing W3C/WAI comments on US DOJ ANPRM on Web Accessibility 19:33:15 agenda+ publications check-in 19:33:47 zakim, code? 19:33:48 the conference code is 92424 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.26.46.79.03 tel:+44.203.318.0479), Jan 19:33:54 agenda+ update on EC Proposal submitted by WAI through W3C/ERCIM yesterday 19:34:28 scribe: jeanne 19:34:42 +[IPcaller] 19:35:02 zakim, [IPcaller] is really Jan 19:35:02 +Jan; got it 19:35:40 zakim, take up first item 19:35:40 I don't understand 'take up first item', jeanne 19:35:48 zakim, next item 19:35:49 agendum 1. "Report on HCG Audio Discussion http://www.w3.org/2011/01/14-hcg-minutes.html" taken up [from Judy] 19:36:27 Janina: The meeting was about gathering requirements. Several of groups had similar requirements. 19:37:17 ... there seems to be agreement, even though no one was speaking for real time communications. The audio devices on users systems regardless of the OS involved. 19:37:54 Judy: This is different from the media format working group we have been envisioning? 19:38:35 Janina: this is different. This is more about processing audio and audio transformations - for example, filtering out certain frequencies 19:38:53 ... there will be a followup conversation, hopefully soon. 19:39:47 ... the media subteam has not wanted to wait for another group to spec out the controls. It would take longer, but I am concerned that the media group may do it too fast. We need a solution that is more generally applicable. 19:40:43 JB: So is this an already chartered group that is developing requirements? I am trying to figure where it is in the process. 19:41:16 Janina: There is a draft charter, but the requirements were beyond the scope of the charter. 19:41:59 presumably this: http://www.w3.org/2010/12/audio-wg-charter.html 19:43:15 Janina: I want to have a spec that will address browser based player for audio. 19:43:42 q+ to ask about inclusion in UAAG 19:44:47 Jeanne: Does this belong in UAAG? 19:45:48 Janina: The generalized cases belong in UAAG. The HCG is defining an api for transformations of sound. 19:47:12 Judy: So the requirements belong in UAAG, and the API development belongs in audio. 19:47:42 Janina: I am promoting HCG because there is a generalized need for it that goes beyond accessibility 19:49:13 Jeanne: The requirements from the HTML/media task force have been reviewed by UAWG. Most of the requirements are covered by UAAG, and UAAG took action items to add some items, but not all. 19:49:56 look at: http://www.w3.org/2010/12/audio-wg-charter.html#scope 19:50:12 jeanne: UAAG needs some technical expertise on these issues, could HCG provide this? 19:50:35 janina: It could be difficult because each platform OS is different. 19:51:04 Judy: this is a good time to comment on the charter because it will probably be addressed by W3M next week. 19:54:30 Judy: You will need to have a liaison between the groups. 19:54:51 jeanne: Mark Hakkinen has been very active in UAAG on these issues. 19:57:28 Judy: Scope is ok, Deliverables add the audio device API, and add UAAG to the dependencies. 19:58:19 zakim, close this item 19:58:19 I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, jeanne 19:58:25 ack 19:58:31 q? 19:58:36 agenda? 19:58:36 ack janina 19:58:41 ack jeanne 19:58:46 zakim, close this item 19:58:53 jeanne, you wanted to ask about inclusion in UAAG 19:58:55 agendum 1 closed 19:58:57 I see 5 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 19:58:59 2. Realtime Communications WG -- Who can we send? [from Judy] 19:59:07 ack jeanne 19:59:13 zakim, close this item 19:59:13 I do not know what agendum had been taken up, jeanne 19:59:36 action: Jeanne to follow up with Mark Hakkinen about liaison with HCG 19:59:36 Created ACTION-76 - Follow up with Mark Hakkinen about liaison with HCG [on Jeanne Spellman - due 2011-01-26]. 19:59:42 zakim, take up next 19:59:42 agendum 2. "Realtime Communications WG -- Who can we send?" taken up [from Judy] 20:00:28 janina: We need someone who is expert in deaf and HH to work with this group. We could talk to Judy Hartwell, who just retired. 20:00:57 Judy: See if she can recommend someone, we can provide interpreters as needed. 20:01:53 Janina: If Galladet would take this on, this new person would be ideal. 20:02:08 ... I'm not sure what the REal TIme Working Group timeline is. 20:02:44 s/Hartwell/Harkins/ 20:03:32 agenda? 20:03:44 zakim, close this item 20:03:44 agendum 2 closed 20:03:45 I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 20:03:46 3. Rethinking ARIA's Value [from Judy] 20:03:50 zakim, take up next 20:03:50 agendum 3. "Rethinking ARIA's Value" taken up [from Judy] 20:04:18 q+ 20:05:35 Janina: The reason we have ARIA is to expand many technologies, not just HTML5. 20:06:24 ... this may be a useful bridge technologies, rather than a patch while we wait for HTML5. ARIA gives us a way to do this in many languages and we have not promoted them enough. 20:06:47 Loretta has joined #CG 20:07:13 Michael: Janina and I were discussing and realized we had different perspectives, and that had implications for HTML5 and other languages. 20:08:12 ... ARIA was originally conceived as a patch, but the other alternative is to see ARIA as an accessibility language, and encourage other languages to support ARIA and encourage its use. 20:08:55 ... I would prefer to encourage native semantics and use ARIA as a bridge technologies. I made a pro/con list which is not complete. 20:10:21 -> http://www.w3.org/2011/01/baking-aria Baking ARIA 20:10:31 janina: this came out of @longdesc discussion. If we are only going to need it in HTML5, then it belongs there, but if we need it in other languages, then we should put it in ARIA. 20:10:49 +Loretta 20:11:49 Loretta has joined #CG 20:14:16 Michael, can you paste in the url again? 20:14:18 Jan: there are no easy answers. The pro's seem to have a slight edge. 20:14:24 -> http://www.w3.org/2011/01/baking-aria Baking ARIA 20:15:09 Judy: ARIA has ended up with a protocol that is probably higher than we expected. There are robust support materials coming together. 20:16:09 ... ARIA may not be the ideal vehicle for the packaging of accessibility information, but it has so much prominence that it could be a good springboard. 20:16:52 Janina: ARIA is 80/20. It doesn't solve every problem, but having a consistent case for everyone to follow is valuable. 20:17:10 ... so are we going to need it in HTML5 or should we put it in ARIA.next 20:19:06 Michael: user interface semantics are in a different layer than host language semantics. ARIA works in SVG. Cons: it requires @@. Accessibility gets limited to ARIA, and new technology may be delayed for updates to ARIA. 20:20:16 Janina: the 80% frees up developers to work on the 20% where ARIA doesn't work. 20:20:44 Jan: there are so many other technologies. How does ARIA apply to SMIL and SVG? 20:21:00 Loretta: what are we trying to decide? 20:21:24 Janina: whether @longdesc should be in ARIA or HTML5 20:22:06 ... we have most of it covered in ARIA except for the mechanism for going off-page - @aria-described-at 20:22:55 Michael: My concern is ghetto-izing accessibility. That new host languages will not be built including accessibility. 20:23:07 ... I see it getting worse over the past few years. 20:24:24 Judy: The HTML5 group has not been a conducive envirnment for collaboration. Many other groups, but not all are better for a collaborative discussion and problem-solving. 20:25:08 Judy: If we weren't to use ARIA, what would be the mechanism to have accessibility in these host languages. 20:26:58 Michael: WCAG. If we were saying the host language were providing it, it could chose to use it's own element to meet the need without the @aria- attribute, but it would map to ARIA. 20:27:23 Jan: Would we then ask HTML5 to remove @alt to be consistent. 20:27:30 Janina: maybe in the next version. 20:28:52 Janina: the messaging should be that ARIA takes care of most of it, and we should work together to solve the issues that ARIA doesn't. 20:30:57 Judy: I think it would require a fair amount of on going promotion to make sure that ARIA didn't fade into the background, unless we were to agitate for obligatory conformance. 20:32:01 ... then it would not be a ghetto-ized solution, and becomes a solution that has a path for technical expertise. 20:34:50 Judy: Define the way we want ARIA to unfold, to insure that the next version of ARIA has what you want in it, and then to talk with colleagues in other groups to be incorporated by reference into other specs. That could be a win-win, where the accessibility solution is defined by the people with the most expertise, and incorporated into other specs in a consistent way. 20:35:59 ... it would also be less vulnerable to the ripping apart uses of time and energy, like we have seen in HTML5. 20:36:09 Jan_ has joined #cg 20:37:08 Michael: I am concerned about average web developers, thinking about @aria- is not needed unless they are working on accessibility. 20:38:05 Judy: we can continue to use @alt to stand for the simplest accessibility feature, but it turns out to be one of the complex issues. 20:39:43 Michael: When we talk about incorporating ARIA, we could start by removing the "aria-" label, and having people harmonize it. That would address the ghetto issue. 20:39:56 Judy: would you be able to do it in CR? 20:40:56 Michael: No, it would not be backward compatible, and developers put a lot of work into the aria- labels. 20:40:57 agenda? 20:41:58 ok 20:41:59 I can 20:42:03 Jan: The ghetto argument assumes that ARIA for accessibility and developers won't do it, but we have to get developers to think about ARIA for information architecture. 20:42:29 Janina: Like " this is an electronic curbcut, you don't need a wheeelchair to use it" 20:42:46 We ned to find another client to take advantage of the ARIA attributes. 20:44:02 Michael: Next step is to post the pros/cons of this discussion, but I think we have moved beyond it. I think we are looking at a baked in ARIA approach and the considerations of implementing it. 20:44:35 Judy: What about drafting a straw position on this leaning in that direction that we could look at more closely and respond to at our next meeting. 20:45:29 action: Janina to draft a straw-man proposal on the position of ARIA 20:45:29 Created ACTION-77 - Draft a straw-man proposal on the position of ARIA [on Janina Sajka - due 2011-01-26]. 20:45:50 action: Michael to draft a straw-man proposal on the position of ARIA. 20:45:50 Created ACTION-78 - Draft a straw-man proposal on the position of ARIA. [on Michael Cooper - due 2011-01-26]. 20:46:14 janina: I will ask Rich if he has run into use cases of non-accessibility uses of ARIA. 20:46:30 Jan: Like a bot using ARIA for testing. 20:46:57 agenda? 20:47:01 zakim, close this item 20:47:06 I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, jeanne 20:47:08 zakim, take up next 20:47:08 I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, jeanne 20:47:16 q+ 20:47:29 ack MichaelC 20:47:33 ack jeanne 20:47:38 zakim, close this item 20:47:38 agendum 3 closed 20:47:39 I see 3 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 20:47:40 4. Preparing W3C/WAI comments on US DOJ ANPRM on Web Accessibility [from Judy] 20:47:44 zakim, take up next item 20:47:44 agendum 4. "Preparing W3C/WAI comments on US DOJ ANPRM on Web Accessibility" taken up [from Judy] 20:48:17 Judy: The ANPRM recommends adopting WCAG @@lost@@ 20:48:45 ... the timing trick is that the DOJ comments are due on Monday. I am working on a draft by tomorrow. 20:49:42 ... there are other approaches circulating. There are other organizations submitting approaches that are supportive of WCAG harmonization. 20:51:01 three relevant links: 20:51:05 http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/July/10-crt-850.html 20:51:18 http://www.ada.gov/anprm2010/factsht_web_anrpm_2010.htm 20:51:18 http://www.ada.gov/anprm2010/web%20anprm_2010.htm 20:51:42 Judy: We will be promoting harmonization 20:51:44 agenda? 20:52:00 zakim, close this item 20:52:00 agendum 4 closed 20:52:01 I see 2 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 20:52:03 5. publications check-in [from Judy] 20:52:05 zakim, take up next 20:52:05 agendum 5. "publications check-in" taken up [from Judy] 20:52:54 Loretta: WCAG is looking to publish Silverlight and PDF techniques. In Feb depending on "Michael-cycles" 20:53:32 Judy: Did the process of publishing a working draft get the results you wanted? 20:53:40 Loretta: We got good comments. 20:54:19 ... I think it had a 6 week comment period, but it was over the summer. 20:55:55 Jeanne: We did get a commitment from Microsoft that they would complete their patent policy review by 19 January. IF they meet that, UAAG will be ready to publish. 20:56:03 Judy: make sure Shawn knows about it. 20:57:20 Judy: A proposal was submitted to the EU last week. We brought in partners in Europe with skills that were appropriate to the paths we were defining. 20:59:17 ... the bulk of the work and resources would be centered in WAI in Europe. It covered funding of a accessibility supported technology repository, and web resources, and support for work in the Research and Development group area. 21:00:04 ... only one proposal will be chosen, so keep your fingers crossed. 21:00:25 zakim, close this item 21:00:25 agendum 5 closed 21:00:26 I see 1 item remaining on the agenda: 21:00:27 6. update on EC Proposal submitted by WAI through W3C/ERCIM yesterday [from Judy] 21:00:28 agenda+ Next meeting 21:00:30 zakim, take up next 21:00:30 agendum 6. "update on EC Proposal submitted by WAI through W3C/ERCIM yesterday" taken up [from Judy] 21:00:39 zakim, close this item 21:00:39 agendum 6 closed 21:00:40 I see 1 item remaining on the agenda: 21:00:41 7. Next meeting [from Judy] 21:00:44 zakim, take up next 21:00:44 agendum 7. "Next meeting" taken up [from Judy] 21:01:05 Next meeting 2 February 21:01:49 rrsagent, make minutes 21:01:49 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/01/19-cg-minutes.html jeanne 21:01:58 rrsagent, make logs public 21:02:24 rrsagent, make minutes 21:02:24 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/01/19-cg-minutes.html jeanne 21:03:04 meeting: WAI Coordination Group 21:03:09 rrsagent, make minutes 21:03:09 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/01/19-cg-minutes.html jeanne 21:03:14 sorry no 21:03:23 sorry no time 21:03:54 present+ Jan, Janina, jeanne, Judy, Loretta, MichaelC 21:03:58 -Jan 21:04:00 -Loretta 21:04:28 -Michael_Cooper 21:04:30 -Janina 21:04:31 -Judy 21:04:32 regrets+ Shawn, Kelly, Jim 21:04:38 rrsagent, make minutes 21:04:38 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/01/19-cg-minutes.html jeanne 21:04:53 zakim, bye 21:04:53 leaving. As of this point the attendees were Janina, Jeanne_Spellman, Judy, Michael_Cooper, Jan, Loretta 21:04:53 Zakim has left #cg 21:05:14 rrsagent, bye 21:05:14 I see 3 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2011/01/19-cg-actions.rdf : 21:05:14 ACTION: Jeanne to follow up with Mark Hakkinen about liaison with HCG [1] 21:05:14 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/01/19-cg-irc#T19-59-36 21:05:14 ACTION: Janina to draft a straw-man proposal on the position of ARIA [2] 21:05:14 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/01/19-cg-irc#T20-45-29 21:05:14 ACTION: Michael to draft a straw-man proposal on the position of ARIA. [3] 21:05:14 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/01/19-cg-irc#T20-45-50