See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 20 January 2011
<paulc> Trying to join on Zakim, but my machine has been asleep for 3 weeks and it is taking some time to get going today!
<paulc> No sympathy requested or expected.
<MikeSmith> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/index.php?title=Scribe_List
<inserted> scribenick: oedipus
RS: mike are you coming?
MS: travelling to cambridge to
meet with administration/management -- may stay in U.S. for
couple of weeks
... probably need to figure out travel and plan on
attending
JS: hoping that PaulC could attend
MS: would be in San Diego
PC: in Ottowa
... been gone for 3 weeks - -have to catch up -- exact
dates?
JS: 19 and 20 March 2011 (Saturday/Sunday)
PC: week aftger SXSW
JS: yes, venue and date due to CSUN conferenfce
<MikeSmith> scribenick: oedipus
PC: will get back to JS and MS on attendance -- would seriously like to attend -- may be going to SXSW -- have to coordinate
<MikeSmith> Confirmed Face to Face meeting of HTML Accessibility Task Force
MS: MCooper posted details to
list confirming times and dates and location
... anything new MCooper?
MC: meeting page without full info yet
<MichaelC> Face to Face meeting page
MC: assumption is will be in
meeting room of Hyatt in San Diego -- not confirmed -- up to
host
... create registration survey and post to public-html-a11y
<MikeSmith> results of survey on text alternatives
<scribe> scribenick: Stevef
whats going to be done with the survey?
<inserted> scribenick: oedipus
SF: didn't go into detail in comments, but could....
MS: purpose of survey collect data responses on consensus within group about various exceptions -- exceptions for cases where 1 can omit @alt
<inserted> scribenick: Stevef
survey closed, purpose to collect data and responses on text alternatives do we have consensus on exceptions
<inserted> scribenick: oedipus
MS: want to decide which exceptions we support, and which we don't
SF: need more reasoning?
MS: need more respondents -- but is that necessary?
<inserted> scribenick: Stevef
not worth providing more reasoning
<oedipus> MS: how to procede?
JS: survey do we have support for a particular proposal
<oedipus> GJR: propose that we give TF members another week to fill out survey
JS: on alt text in HTML5, look at survey and compare to chart of lauras
MC: not opposed but not for extending survey
<oedipus> GJR: if summarize results and post to public-html-a11y can give TF members a chance to evaluate and endorse
MS: muliple change proposals will proceed through wroking group anyway, should taskforce endorse one or more
JS: mike is right
... a range of probabilities, where is the consensus?
JF: seem to be clear trends in survey
JS: if we have consnensus maybe
we don't need more numbers
... lets take the trended responses and refere to chnage
proposals
<oedipus> plus 1
<richardschwerdtfe> BRB
<oedipus> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/44061/201101-issue-31/results
<inserted> scribenick: oedipus
SF: in agreement with trends -- 1
for aria-labelledby conforming text alternative and
role="presentation" -- disagree with these because neither
fulfill same role as @alt in browsers, no indication UAs will
treat the 2 in the same way, and there is open hostility to
using ARIA-annotations to "fix" normal display in UAs
... for aria-labelledby, how would serve as text
equivalent?
... empty @alt with role="presentation"
... graphical browsers, when image loading turned off, needs a
non-ARIA solution -- what is missing is some plan or proposal
for how UAs will implement this
CS: underspecced aria-labelledby and role="presentation" for "regular user agents"
SF: looked into aria-labelledby quite a bit in composing Alt Text Techs -- have not found aria-labelledby sufficient to replace @alt -- may be useful in case where one uses FIGURe and FIGCAPTION/CAPTION but haven't found good use cases for it
RS: use labelledby when have text that is visible -- if embedded text, use aria-label
SF: understand use cases -- what i haven't found is evidence for use of aria-labelledby without an @alt without an image on a web page
RS: if have @alt, use it
SF: true
RS: if have large chart and have the title for chart then there is your labelledby value, but separate from chart
CS: use cases for no @alt
... suggestion is not require aria-labelleby, but that it is ok
to use
<JF> +q
SF: can't come up with reason to use aria-labelleby that is superior to using @alt
RS: big picture with short name (CAPTION for sighted users)
SF: that is what FIGCAPTION is
for
... if caption element, make relationship programmatic between
image and caption
... issue with describedby and labelledby -- if have text
elsewhere on page, when get to imagtte, hear referenced text --
still hear text when read-all --
<eric> should we be concerned that a group of the world's accessibility experts can't agree on how to label an image?
SF: aria-labelledby scenario -- in application mode -- not getting access to on-screen text -- moving between focusable elements
GJR: role isn't defined in HTML5
spec
... need to pin down what a @role in HTML5 is
RS: aria-integration -- role refers to section of ARIA where role attribute defined
<inserted> scribenick: SteveF
RS: had to update the sectionin the aria spec to define role
<JF> +q
<oedipus> RS: have to define @role
GJR: HTML5 spec does not define @role, and ARIA states that @role is similar to that defined in Role Attribute, but no normative reference to @role from HTML5
JF: if alt is not present then others will suffice
<inserted> scribenick: oedipus
SF: if have a piece of text that is referenced by aria-labelledby, that text becomes accessible name value for image -- no semantic distincition
JF: always said that @alt should never be supplied by machine -- same rule for labelledby -- can't be assigned programmatically or by authoring tool
SF: that ends up doing the same
thing as @alt does
... got a heirarchy of things
GJR: we want a cascascade of equivalency
SF: when issue of providing
reason for aria-labelledby use i came up with Flickr to re-use
heading or title on page for image (if one image on page or one
image in DIV) -- TITLE best for aria-labelledby
... different from authoring practices -- limitation of
tool
... auto-generated web page, should create a relationship
automatically
MS: what actions can we take away
to move this forward?
... not saying don't need progress on these issues, but unsure
of where to go from here -- could say disagree with some
deatails of change proposals -- first task: find out what TF
feels about change proposals
... change proposals will move forward if submitted by
individuals
... what is the TF role in this?
JS: did survey results highlight
agreement?
... Laura charted what supported -- need comparison
<inserted> scribenick: Stevef
JS: somebody needs to compare change proposals
<inserted> scribenick: oedipus
JS: extend survey -- not going to hold anything up
<inserted> scribenick: oedipus
<inserted> scribenick: Stevef
JS: lets extend the discussion
MS: you and i can talk about this
lets extend survey for another week
... TOPIC: Media Sub-Team Report
... media subteam any bdiscussion about feedback from
google?
JS: not discussed but make way to
talk about it next week
... talked about poster issue, various points of disagreement,
we uncovered another requirement whcichis not documented
yet
... no programmatic way to tell browser i don't want
autoplay
<oedipus> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Jan/0152.html Google feedback on HTML5 media a11y (Silvia Pfieffer)
MS: sounds like a big deal, next step? do we need to file a bug/
JF: yes absolutley
JS: can you file the bug?
JF: yes
MS: move on it sooner ratrher than later
eric: not sure if its a user agent problem or not
MS: google feedback is good should act on it pronto, nit delay
<oedipus> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Canvas/Meetings
rich: close on focus ring, still working on caret, google may join the meetings
<oedipus> the EXPERTS (AISquared) said they need caret even without RTE
<inserted> scribenick: oedipus
RS: use contenteditable?
SF: using the DOM
RS: if use DOM and not using
canvas, still have to deal with grammar and spelling errors --
problems that don't go away -- plus NEED a caret
... same set of problems with RTE or other interactive CANVAS
implementations
... caret helps with positioning of text -- populated to a11y
API layer -- only thing left is grammar and
spell-checking
... use case: VM access to a Unix system -- wrote modification
to canvas that intercepts drawing calls that would create
virtual desktop via CANVAS so can work on own machine remotely
using CANVAS
... once 1 has canvas, 1 opens a HUGE bucket of worms
MS: should investigate in more detail
SF: ARIA mapping call
... hixie provided an alternative counter proposal -- some
things quite useful -- pointed out errors and issues with alt
spec text -- started to work way through to pull out items that
need further discussion
... won't make major difference if don't include the changes
that have been suggested for spec text -- worth discussing the
bits to get down to core issues
... me, Rich, DBolter, Cyns will attend next week
... put hixie's counter proposal in wiki
... now counter propasal has been submitted, have time to
respond -- can we modify our proposal to reflect new
information?
[TWO MINUTE WARNING]
PC: if can't get consensus on
initial change proposal and do call for counter-proposal and
info in counter-proposal contains info that means original
change proposal needs tweaking -- best thing to do if impact
original change proposal, tell chairs that and negotiate a
schedule before chairs run survey
... make clear to WG and counter-proposal author how trying to
take their comments in consideration by chaning change
proposal
... short answer: yes
SF: hixie posted bug on this --
claimed won't be implemented
... HTML to A11y API mapping hixie claims not needed; browser
vendors disagreed, now hixie posted bug against whole thing to
reflect his change of mind, but no details on ISSUE-129 -- when
wilil he elaborate on his thinking?
... need to know what hixie intends to put into spec before can
comment
MS: understood
PC: should make clear from your
position what you believe is blocking next step -- write email
to make clear to chairs that don't want to proceede to survey
until all info available and all parties have time to reflect
on issue
... also, ask me questions when i am here (and i try to make
all the meetings i can)
SF: reasonable questions asked
yield no response -- what to do other than wait?
... deafining silence in some areas
PC: if feel that is happening, please send me a private note -- going to drop off for HTML WG call
MS: bug-triage update?
MC: dealing with bugs, want to mark verified and close, but not original filer, so in limbo -- want to know how much discretion is up to triage team
JF: who filed bugs?
MC: various people
JF: contributor@whatwg.org bugs been mostly closed
MS: for those, once triage team
reviews, TF has to take ownership so that action can be taken
on them
... if no one complains, then ok -- if complaints, then deal
with them as specific problems
<richardschwerdtfe> sorry, had to drop
MK: we can verify without problem -- Laura wanted to know once a bug is verified/fixed original reporter has 2 week time frame to close or reply -- if no reply, closes automatically after 2 weeks
MC: process feature?
MS: yes
MC: a lot of bugs are still open
MK: ok to verify bug -- next person who comes across it can close it
MC: didn't have that understanding
MS: think in decision policy document
MC: says bug closes, but not who closes it
MS: should raise as decision policy bug -- will look into this today and talk to chairs about this
<kliehm> Once a bug is verified the reporter has two weeks to respond, otherwise the bug can be closed.
GJR: change proposals due 22 january 2011 to be considered pre-Last Call comments
January 22, 2011 is the cut-off for escalating bugs for pre-LC consideration--all issues in tracker, calls for proposal issued by this date. Consequences of missing this date: any further escalations will be treated as a Last Call comment (http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/LastCallTimeline)
s/a+//G
[ADJOURN]
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: i/RS: mike are you/scribenick: oedipus Succeeded: i/SF: didn't go into detail/scribenick: oedipus Succeeded: i/survey closed, purpose to collect data and responses/scribenick: Stevef Succeeded: i/MS: want to decide which exceptions/scribenick: oedipus Succeeded: i/not worth providing more reasoning/scribenick: Stevef Succeeded: i/SF: in agreement with trends/scribenick: oedipus Succeeded: i/RS: had to update the sectionin the aria spec to define role/scribenick: SteveF Succeeded: s/a+// Succeeded: s/a+// Succeeded: i/SF: if have a piece of text that is referenced by aria-labelledby/scribenick: oedipus Succeeded: s/JS: somebodey needs to compare chnage proposals/JS: somebody needs to compare change proposals/ Succeeded: i/JS: somebody needs to compare change proposals/scribenick: Stevef Succeeded: i/JS: lest extend the discussion/scribenick: oedipus Succeeded: i/JS: extend survey -- not going to hold anything up/scribenick: oedipus Succeeded: i/JS: lest extend the discussion/scribenick: Stevef Succeeded: s/qck oe// FAILED: s/a+//G Succeeded: s/says its based upon the concept of the role attribute bit not referenced/HTML5 spec does not define @role, and ARIA states that @role is similar to that defined in Role Attribute, but no normative reference to @role from HTML5/ Succeeded: i/RS: use contenteditable?/scribenick: oedipus Succeeded: i/MS: bug-triage update?/TOPIC: Bug-Triage Sub-Team Update Succeeded: s/JS: lest extend the discussion/JS: lets extend the discussion/ Succeeded: s/subteam reports/TOPIC: Media Sub-Team Report/ Succeeded: i/rich: close on focus ring,/TOPIC: Canvas Sub-Team Report Succeeded: i/SF: ARIA mapping call/TOPIC: ARIA Mapping Sub-Team Report Succeeded: i/change proposals due 22 january 2011/TOPIC: Timeline to Last Call Found ScribeNick: oedipus Found ScribeNick: oedipus Found ScribeNick: Stevef Found ScribeNick: oedipus Found ScribeNick: Stevef Found ScribeNick: oedipus Found ScribeNick: Stevef Found ScribeNick: oedipus Found ScribeNick: SteveF Found ScribeNick: oedipus Found ScribeNick: Stevef Found ScribeNick: oedipus Found ScribeNick: oedipus WARNING: No scribe lines found matching ScribeNick pattern: <oedipus> ... Found ScribeNick: Stevef Found ScribeNick: oedipus Inferring Scribes: oedipus, Stevef Scribes: oedipus, Stevef ScribeNicks: oedipus, Stevef Default Present: John_Foliot, Gregory_Rosmaita, Mike, Janina, Eric_Carlson, Michael_Cooper, paulc, Rich_Schwerdtfeger, Sean_Hayes, kliehm, Cynthia_Shelly Present: John_Foliot Gregory_Rosmaita Mike Janina Eric_Carlson Michael_Cooper paulc Rich_Schwerdtfeger Sean_Hayes kliehm Cynthia_Shelly Regrets: Laura_Carlson Marco_Ranon Léonie_Watson Kenny_Johar Joshue_O'Connor Silvia_Pfieffer Leonie_Watson Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Jan/0201.html Found Date: 20 Jan 2011 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2011/01/20-html-a11y-minutes.html People with action items: WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]