00:16:56 <silvia> silvia has joined #html-a11y
00:35:12 <judy> judy has joined #html-a11y
02:19:33 <MikeSmith_> MikeSmith_ has joined #html-a11y
04:21:06 <MikeSmith_> MikeSmith_ has joined #html-a11y
05:06:46 <MikeSmith> MikeSmith has joined #html-a11y
05:50:41 <davidb> davidb has joined #html-a11y
05:56:20 <MikeSmith> MikeSmith has joined #html-a11y
14:59:10 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #html-a11y
14:59:10 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/04/07-html-a11y-irc
14:59:12 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
14:59:12 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #html-a11y
14:59:14 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 2119
14:59:14 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see WAI_PFWG(HTML TF)11:00AM scheduled to start in 1 minute
14:59:15 <trackbot> Meeting: HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference
14:59:15 <trackbot> Date: 07 April 2011
14:59:33 <oedipus> agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Apr/0041.html
14:59:39 <oedipus> chair: MikeSmith
15:00:29 <MRanon> MRanon has joined #html-a11y
15:00:45 <MichaelC> zakim, this is 2119
15:00:45 <Zakim> ok, MichaelC; that matches WAI_PFWG(HTML TF)11:00AM
15:00:50 <MichaelC> zakim, who's on the phone?
15:00:50 <Zakim> On the phone I see John_Foliot, Eric_Carlson, ??P2, ??P6, Michael_Cooper
15:01:20 <Zakim> +Judy
15:01:26 <Zakim> +Gregory_Rosmaita
15:01:32 <Stevef> Stevef has joined #html-a11y
15:01:34 <MichaelC> zakim, ??P2 is Janina_Sajka
15:01:34 <Zakim> +Janina_Sajka; got it
15:01:45 <MichaelC> zakim, ??P6 is Steve_Faulkner
15:01:45 <Zakim> +Steve_Faulkner; got it
15:02:21 <MikeSmith> Zakim, call Mike-goog
15:02:21 <Zakim> ok, MikeSmith; the call is being made
15:02:23 <Zakim> +Mike
15:02:30 <Zakim> + +44.207.391.aaaa
15:02:43 <MRanon> zakim, aaaa is me
15:02:43 <Zakim> +MRanon; got it
15:03:19 <richardschwerdtfe> richardschwerdtfe has joined #html-a11y
15:04:56 <oedipus> zakim, who is here?
15:04:56 <Zakim> On the phone I see John_Foliot, Eric_Carlson, Janina_Sajka, Steve_Faulkner, Michael_Cooper, Judy, Gregory_Rosmaita, Mike, MRanon
15:05:02 <Zakim> On IRC I see richardschwerdtfe, Stevef, MRanon, Zakim, RRSAgent, eric_carlson, JF, judy, MichaelC, MikeSmith, janina, oedipus, [tm], trackbot
15:05:11 <Zakim> +Rich
15:05:36 <oedipus> zakim, who is noisy?
15:05:55 <Stevef> MS: not too much agenda one is talk about 1st public working draft for API ammping doc
15:05:56 <MikeSmith> agenda+ table summary decision
15:05:57 <Zakim> oedipus, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Janina_Sajka (40%), John_Foliot (5%), MRanon (38%)
15:06:13 <Stevef> JS: wants to talk about @summary
15:06:17 <MRanon> zakim, mute me
15:06:20 <Zakim> MRanon should now be muted
15:06:38 <Stevef> JB: maybe talk about @poster decision
15:06:49 <oedipus> plus 1 to poster
15:06:55 <Stevef> MS: any other suggestions?
15:07:07 <Zakim> +Léonie_Watson
15:07:08 <Stevef> MS: hearing none
15:07:22 <MikeSmith> agenda+ video poster
15:07:27 <Stevef> video poster issue 142
15:08:01 <oedipus> HTML Working Group Decision on ISSUE-32 table-summary: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0091.html
15:08:03 <Zakim> +Cynthia_Shelly
15:08:23 <Stevef> MS: lets not cover hgroup today
15:08:32 <MikeSmith> agenda+ hgroup
15:08:43 <Stevef> MS: put mit on agendum for now and will be on for next week
15:09:06 <Stevef> MS: canvas subteam, only a few people on the call right?
15:09:21 <judy> zakim, who's on the phone?
15:09:21 <Zakim> On the phone I see John_Foliot, Eric_Carlson, Janina_Sajka, Steve_Faulkner, Michael_Cooper, Judy, Gregory_Rosmaita, Mike, MRanon (muted), Rich, Léonie_Watson, Cynthia_Shelly
15:09:22 <Stevef> RS: only a few on the call, usuallu only a few
15:09:38 <Leonie_Watson> Leonie_Watson has joined #html-a11y
15:09:39 <oedipus> i/MS: canvas subteam/TOPIC: Canvas Subteam Report
15:10:40 <Stevef> RS: waiting on chairs decision on issue 133, thinks we are in good shpe, depends on chahirs, other issue how do we get bounding rectangles on objects so that magnifiers can identify
15:11:06 <oedipus> clickable regions on use of clickableregions to feed bounding examples: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-canvas-api/2011JanMar/0090.html
15:11:08 <Stevef> RS: not retained graphics in canvas, required for solid hit testing vehicle to drive AT support
15:11:13 <oedipus> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/issue-131-objection-poll/results
15:11:59 <Stevef> RS: example shows that to get around this developers use multiple canvas objects ugly 
15:12:23 <oedipus> minutes of canvas call 2011-04-04 http://www.w3.org/2011/04/04-html-a11y-minutes.html
15:13:16 <Stevef> RS: svg is having drawing path, canvas needs one to, have sent ian use cases, waiting to hear back, once we have hittesting will be able to drive accessibility 
15:13:21 <MikeSmith> q?
15:13:45 <Stevef> MS: canvas is not retained mode by design, feature not shortcoming
15:14:18 <oedipus> ever heard of unforseen consequences
15:14:31 <Stevef> MS: essentially this can be seen as canvas being made into something it was nevr intended for, any response?
15:14:47 <oedipus> a11y is often the "canary in the coal mine" when it comes to "standard" architectures
15:15:42 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/04/07-html-a11y-minutes.html oedipus
15:15:59 <Stevef> RS: understand apples intenet for canvas, but reality entirely different, unlike svg most people doing desktop apps usnderstand canvas, they wiil/are using canvas to cerate applications, so from a11y perspective at the end of the day still have to have access to it, for a11y need fetaures built in
15:16:17 <MikeSmith> q?
15:16:34 <oedipus> profiles was feedback from the TV industry at TPAC 2010 HTML WG F2F
15:16:41 <Stevef> RS: at last tpac set top manufacturers said sweet spot fot html5 will  be canvas + css
15:17:14 <oedipus> i/MS: not too much agenda /TOPIC: Agenda Review/
15:17:17 <Stevef> RS: whats happeneing is not what was intended need to take this into account
15:17:54 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/04/07-html-a11y-minutes.html oedipus
15:18:07 <Stevef> MS: this is not an incremental; change its fundemental change to architecture of canvas implementaion, is it necessary and why?
15:18:15 <Stevef> MS: what will they gain?
15:18:32 <oedipus> regrets+ Laura_Carlson, Denis_Boudreau
15:18:44 <Stevef> RS: do we have to do a full blown reatined mode? I don't think we do, only needed for hot testing
15:19:14 <Stevef> MS: probably said enough for now, have enough info to go forward
15:19:26 <Stevef> JF: canvas + JS thanks
15:19:58 <Stevef> RS: ian highlighted need to develope solution not just for accessibility, hiti testing does that
15:20:08 <oedipus> s/sweet spot fot html5 will  be canvas + css/sweet spot for html5 will be canvas + JS/
15:20:27 <Stevef> RS: not askin g for all, just enough to support a11y
15:20:55 <oedipus> hit-testing is needed by AT devs -- they asked for it
15:21:08 <Stevef> RS: put in a very simple hit testing stratgey on top of canvas without having to have full retained mode
15:21:29 <Stevef> MS: bug triage next, mike, marco, martin?
15:21:47 <Stevef> TOPIC: Bug Triage Report
15:22:04 <Stevef> MC: not much done,in last few weeks
15:22:35 <oedipus> plus 1 to big thanks to bug triage team
15:22:35 <Stevef> MS: letting things queue up a bit due to last call
15:22:50 <Stevef> MS: bug triage team greta job!
15:22:56 <Stevef> MS: no urgency
15:23:13 <Stevef> OK thanks
15:23:36 <Stevef> TOPIC: media subteam report
15:24:01 <oedipus> media telecon minutes from 2011-04-06 http://www.w3.org/2011/04/06-html-a11y-minutes.html
15:24:35 <MikeSmith> q?
15:24:42 <Stevef> JF: focused on vexing issue 152, multitrack API, chairs granted extension, have 3-4 solid proposals with fundemantal differences, still talking issues through
15:25:54 <Stevef> JF: lot of discussion about Ian's mediacontroller proposal, discussion about master timeline, still dissecting options, will be having to con calls a week for the next few weeks, convey our sense of urgency to chairs please mike
15:26:13 <Stevef> JF: resolution critical to last call
15:26:30 <Stevef> JF: general feeling is that calls are productive
15:26:43 <judy> q+
15:27:02 <Stevef> MS: you sid it would be extremely problematic if we get it reoslved prior to last call, 
15:27:23 <Stevef> JF: if we can't do it we cannot provide sign language captions
15:27:24 <judy> q+ to further clarify for Mike
15:27:41 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/04/07-html-a11y-minutes.html oedipus
15:27:42 <Stevef> MS: does not mean we won't vere have it but not just before last call
15:28:16 <Stevef> JF: if it goes into last call without then the htnl5 spec will not be complete
15:28:18 <MikeSmith> ack judy
15:28:18 <Zakim> judy, you wanted to further clarify for Mike
15:28:42 <Stevef> MS: HTML WG or W3C process does not require it to be complete before going to last call
15:29:08 <MikeSmith> q+ to say that this is not a "must" requirement in the process document, and the WG chairs have discretion to determine LC process for their groups
15:29:15 <oedipus> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/
15:29:51 <Stevef> JB: people feel that significant requirement will niot be met if certain requirements are not in the spec, multitrack is something that meets the crieria of being feature complete before last call
15:30:42 <Stevef> JB: if there was progress before last call, would not stand on formality, thats why people are working hjard to get consensus before last call
15:31:51 <MikeSmith> I don't accept the assertion that not having this decided by start of LC will compromise progress of implementations during the coming year
15:31:57 <Stevef> JB: one of the reasons why the last call timimg is of concern, is as we all know it is being implemented as it involves, not having stable multitrack will comprimise implementations in the coming year, thinks track it is one now is making gopod progress so should not be an issue
15:31:58 <MikeSmith> ack MikeSmith 
15:31:58 <Zakim> MikeSmith, you wanted to say that this is not a "must" requirement in the process document, and the WG chairs have discretion to determine LC process for their groups
15:32:17 <JF> +q
15:32:34 <judy> s/would not stand/the co-chairs asserted that they would not stand/
15:32:40 <oedipus> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#Reports
15:32:50 <oedipus> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#rec-advance
15:33:38 <oedipus> this is similar to canvas -- it is being implemented NOW by fiat without a11y isxues addressed, and it is MUCH harder to address a11y after-the-fact than building it in from the start
15:33:57 <oedipus> svk JG
15:34:00 <oedipus> ack JF
15:34:02 <Stevef> MS: prcess doc does not say the spec has to be feature complete, gives WG chairs discretion, which is what the HTML chairs are doing, also do not agree that it will comprimise implementation in the coming year regardless ofif this gets decided before LC
15:34:03 <Stevef> MS: if we try to force resolution before lC could be a problem, we have people working together, on the path to resolution
15:34:07 <oedipus> s/svk JG//
15:34:46 <Stevef> JF: moving to alst call will we continue to get heartbeat udpates during last call? after may 22nd
15:35:17 <oedipus> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#maturity-levels
15:36:15 <Stevef> MS: its up to html wg chairs for publication, they feel strongly about heartbeat requirements, feel they will be pushing to continue . also implementors will work from editors draft not stable spec
15:36:17 <oedipus> Q+ to say that 1 problem is blind obedience to "WG process" -- canvas a11y work was a specific task of Canvas Subteam, there should have been no call for counter-proposals, as that is what the spec is
15:36:23 <oedipus> q?
15:36:28 <MikeSmith> q?
15:36:38 <judy> q+
15:36:46 <Stevef> MS: what authors of books and turorials do  we can't have control over
15:36:56 <Stevef> JF: so impelemntors have control?
15:37:03 <MikeSmith> ack judy 
15:37:13 <MikeSmith> ack oedipus 
15:37:13 <Zakim> oedipus, you wanted to say that 1 problem is blind obedience to "WG process" -- canvas a11y work was a specific task of Canvas Subteam, there should have been no call for
15:37:17 <Zakim> ... counter-proposals, as that is what the spec is
15:37:22 <Stevef> MS: yes implementors have control over wehat goes into the spec
15:37:57 <Stevef> Gregory: disagree with process
15:38:11 <Stevef> MS: need to take it up with the chairs
15:38:34 <Stevef> MS: talke it up on the html call/mailing list
15:39:06 <JF> You can have Quality, On budget, and On Time - pick 2
15:39:07 <MikeSmith> ack judy 
15:39:16 <JF> +1 to Judy
15:39:18 <Stevef> MS: affects us but we cannot do anything about it in the a11 task force
15:40:41 <oedipus> plus 1 to judy -- W3C process different from "WG process" set up by chairs, but they are following cookie-cutter process which is detrimental to development of spec
15:40:50 <Stevef> JB: it may be useful to refer to 2 different levels of process 1. w3c process protective of accessibility , html wg microprocess directs them to issue call for proposal even on areas that have been worked on by taskforces
15:41:30 <oedipus> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#maturity-levels
15:41:33 <Stevef> JB: we have disagreements amongst w3c reps in regards to feature completeness. disagree and will be adding to minutes myself
15:41:51 <MikeSmith> q?
15:42:53 <Stevef> JB: have several items in a11y area now where it may need a forma objection. one of the process things that is very clear if you disagree there are steps to object
15:42:55 <Stevef> would,like to get groups disagreement documented
15:42:56 <eric_carlson> minus 1 to Judy -- giving *any* group of experts absolute authority is a bad idea
15:43:36 <JF> @ eric_carlson - as opposed to allowing uninformed participants steam-roller issues that harms real accessibility?
15:43:49 <Stevef> JB: my sense is moving things that are stuck, may be usefulto get a more focused discussion, form subgroup to develop propsoal aroun alt issues
15:44:10 <oedipus> eric_carlson, we aren't asking for absolute authority -- only that the HTML WG and chairs recognize that accessibility is the specific focus of the TF and the WAI and that info from those fora deserve to be listened to and not told that our use cases concern someone's mother-in-law (see last week's statement by paulc)
15:44:27 <Stevef> JB: media current status, support from co-chairs, not stand on ceremony if progress to consensus
15:45:28 <oedipus> TOPIC: ARIA Mappijng Report
15:45:35 <oedipus> MS: summary of where subgroup is at?
15:45:50 <oedipus> SF: haven't had meetings due to other work and due to work assigned at SD f2f
15:45:56 <JF> +q
15:46:11 <oedipus> SF: 2 areas of work: 1 writing text for definition of @role and aria attributes in HTML5 -- will ocur during last call
15:46:37 <MikeSmith> q?
15:46:40 <oedipus> SF: 2. HTML-A11y-API doc -- emailing those concerned to get more fomal process to work on document -- a lot of work -- need others' involvement
15:47:15 <oedipus> SF: HTML-A11y API mapping document will get more attention once the aria-in-html work is done
15:47:24 <oedipus> CS: should see progress in 2 weeks time
15:47:45 <oedipus> MS: announced on list consensus for FPWD of A11y APIs
15:48:00 <oedipus> MS: waing for chairs to send request for transition to plh
15:48:05 <Stevef> MS: paul said we had consensus for html accessibility API guide to be publsihed as FPWD
15:48:20 <JF> ack JF
15:48:26 <oedipus> MS: waiting for comm team to get frist FPWD published -- maybe tuesday or thursday this week
15:48:44 <Stevef> oedipus: can you scribe now as i gotta go soon/
15:48:57 <oedipus> TOPIC: @summary for TABLE
15:49:00 <oedipus> HTML Working Group Decision on ISSUE-32 table-summary: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0091.html
15:49:14 <oedipus> JB: assume everyone on call has read WG decision
15:49:26 <oedipus> [general yeses]
15:49:48 <oedipus> JB: yes or no question: do people feel that HTML5 is feature complete without @summary for TABLE
15:49:50 <oedipus> SF: yes
15:49:52 <oedipus> GJR: no
15:49:54 <oedipus> JS: no