IRC log of html-a11y on 2011-06-08

Timestamps are in UTC.

21:26:37 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #html-a11y
21:26:37 [RRSAgent]
logging to
21:26:39 [MikeSmith]
MikeSmith has joined #html-a11y
21:26:39 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
21:26:39 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #html-a11y
21:26:41 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be 2119
21:26:41 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see WAI_PFWG(A11Y)5:30PM scheduled to start in 4 minutes
21:26:42 [trackbot]
Meeting: HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference
21:26:42 [trackbot]
Date: 08 June 2011
21:27:02 [JF]
zakim, this is 2119
21:27:02 [Zakim]
JF, I see WAI_PFWG(A11Y)5:30PM in the schedule but not yet started. Perhaps you mean "this will be 2119".
21:27:13 [JF]
zakim, this will be 2119
21:27:13 [Zakim]
ok, JF; I see WAI_PFWG(A11Y)5:30PM scheduled to start in 3 minutes
21:27:51 [Zakim]
WAI_PFWG(A11Y)5:30PM has now started
21:27:58 [Zakim]
+ +1.650.468.aaaa
21:28:14 [JF]
Meeting: HTML-A11Y telecon
21:28:16 [JF]
21:28:17 [JF]
21:28:19 [JF]
agenda: this
21:28:20 [JF]
agenda+Paused Media: Updates? Browser Support?
21:28:22 [JF]
agenda+Hierarchical Navigation: Progress Checkin
21:28:24 [JF]
agenda+Texted Descriptions: Requirements on A11y APIs
21:28:26 [JF]
agenda+3GPP Request Followup
21:28:27 [JF]
21:28:29 [JF]
agenda+.html Actions Review
21:28:30 [JF]
21:28:32 [JF]
agenda+Other Business?
21:28:33 [JF]
agenda+ be done
21:28:35 [JF]
zakim, aaaa is JF
21:28:35 [Zakim]
+JF; got it
21:28:44 [silvia]
silvia has joined #html-a11y
21:29:02 [Zakim]
+ +44.844.800.aabb
21:29:09 [MikeSmith]
MikeSmith has joined #html-a11y
21:29:27 [JF]
zakim, aabb is Sean
21:29:27 [Zakim]
+Sean; got it
21:30:50 [Zakim]
21:31:06 [JF]
zakim, ??P6 is Janina
21:31:06 [Zakim]
+Janina; got it
21:31:23 [JF]
rrsagent, make logs public
21:31:41 [MikeSmith]
MikeSmith has joined #html-a11y
21:32:56 [janina]
zakim, who's here?
21:32:56 [Zakim]
On the phone I see JF, Sean, Janina
21:32:58 [Zakim]
On IRC I see silvia, Zakim, RRSAgent, JF, Sean, janina, MichaelC, [tm], trackbot
21:34:11 [MikeSmith]
MikeSmith has joined #html-a11y
21:35:26 [Zakim]
21:36:27 [JF]
zakim, take up next item
21:36:27 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "Paused Media: Updates? Browser Support?" taken up [from JF]
21:36:42 [MikeSmith]
MikeSmith has joined #html-a11y
21:37:39 [janina]
zakim, agenda?
21:37:39 [Zakim]
I see 9 items remaining on the agenda:
21:37:40 [Zakim]
1. Paused Media: Updates? Browser Support? [from JF]
21:37:42 [Zakim]
2. Hierarchical Navigation: Progress Checkin [from JF]
21:37:44 [Zakim]
3. Texted Descriptions: Requirements on A11y APIs [from JF]
21:37:47 [Zakim]
4. 3GPP Request Followup [from JF]
21:37:48 [Zakim]
5. [from JF]
21:37:49 [Zakim]
6. .html Actions Review [from JF]
21:37:50 [Zakim]
7. [from JF]
21:37:51 [Zakim]
8. Other Business? [from JF]
21:37:51 [Zakim]
9. be done [from JF]
21:38:16 [JF]
JS: question is, has there been any discussion with implementors?
21:38:46 [JF]
JS: are we looking at the right thing here, will we get browser support or should we be looking at other solutions?
21:39:07 [JF]
SP: Jonas is putting in a proposal w.r.t. @longdesc that will impact on this
21:39:12 [MikeSmith]
MikeSmith has joined #html-a11y
21:39:37 [JF]
JS: that is related, but by itself will not do the whole thing
21:39:48 [JF]
SP: if that is possible then it should do most of it
21:40:03 [JF]
there was also the introduction of the idea of @transcript
21:40:22 [JF]
waiting to hear of outcome of @longdesc discussion
21:40:38 [JF]
JS: we should not be waiting on other decision to move on our work
21:41:43 [MikeSmith]
MikeSmith has joined #html-a11y
21:44:13 [MikeSmith]
MikeSmith has joined #html-a11y
21:46:44 [MikeSmith]
MikeSmith has joined #html-a11y
21:51:10 [JF]
(Discussion on the browser issue of a) concatenating multiple aria-describedby values, and b0 flattening of markup
21:51:45 [JF]
ACTION: JF should file bugs on this
21:51:45 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-130 - Should file bugs on this [on John Foliot - due 2011-06-15].
21:53:14 [JF]
zakim, next item
21:53:14 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "Hierarchical Navigation: Progress Checkin" taken up [from JF]
21:53:57 [JF]
JS: lengthy discussion last week on hierarchical navigation would work
21:54:22 [JF]
PS: sent a link to a demo from Google that showed how chapters worked
21:54:34 [silvia]
21:54:39 [JF]
was also supposed to add some content to the wiki but has been backed up with other issues
21:55:17 [JF]
Geoff Freed provided some feedback on those demos that was valuable
21:57:22 [MikeSmith]
MikeSmith has joined #html-a11y
22:00:24 [janina]
22:02:05 [Sean]
theres a tool called acc-checker for UIA
22:02:55 [Sean]
22:07:31 [JF]
zakim, next item
22:07:31 [Zakim]
agendum 3. "Texted Descriptions: Requirements on A11y APIs" taken up [from JF]
22:07:35 [Zakim]
22:07:51 [JF]
SP: there has been an active discussion around this
22:08:37 [JF]
JS: notes that this has also shown up on related wikis and mailing lists (i.e. Linux foundation)
22:08:57 [JF]
JS: there are some existing holes in the Accessibility APIs
22:09:11 [JF]
they are being reviewed to try to keep the APIs in sync
22:09:28 [MikeSmith]
MikeSmith has joined #html-a11y
22:10:20 [silvia]
22:10:28 [JF]
we should feed this information to others via members of this group to related stakeholders
22:10:32 [Zakim]
22:11:48 [paulc]
paulc has joined #html-a11y
22:12:12 [JF]
zakim, [Microsoft] is Paul Cotton
22:12:12 [Zakim]
I don't understand '[Microsoft] is Paul Cotton', JF
22:13:00 [JF]
SH: believes the list discussion is productive, and should continue as is progressing
22:13:26 [JF]
JS: think we should do 2 things here
22:13:34 [JF]
we have crossed several usedcases
22:13:56 [JF]
we need to extract them and spell them out, as some of them will require different solutions
22:14:02 [JF]
zakim, who's noisy?
22:14:16 [Zakim]
JF, listening for 13 seconds I heard sound from the following: [Microsoft] (40%), JF (3%), Janina (71%)
22:14:59 [JF]
JS: Cynthia and I will bring this up ion the API discussions as well
22:15:04 [Zakim]
22:15:21 [JF]
also ensure that the various media types are being mapped correctly
22:15:33 [MikeSmith]
MikeSmith has joined #html-a11y
22:15:43 [plh]
plh has joined #html-a11y
22:15:49 [Zakim]
22:15:54 [silvia]
zakim, mute me
22:15:54 [Zakim]
silvia should now be muted
22:16:06 [JF]
zakim, next item
22:16:06 [Zakim]
agendum 4. "3GPP Request Followup" taken up [from JF]
22:16:34 [JF]
JS: Mark Watson unable to be with us today
22:16:47 [JF]
he is also apparently a member of 3GPP
22:16:54 [JF]
they might all be at WWDC
22:17:39 [JF]
JS: we have a request from 3GPP that has some specificss that may be out of scope at w3C
22:18:05 [JF]
we should perhaps clarify goals and purposes, next steps, etc.
22:18:34 [JF]
PLH: the request was sent to the accessibility task force, and the request was that the HTML WG be included as well
22:18:49 [JF]
the response can come back from Mike Smith, the chairs, we can figure that out later
22:19:12 [JF]
JS: my understanding is that we have an agreed upon taxonomy, a specific way of naming all the media types that are in sync
22:19:35 [JF]
so that we can be consistent whether it is machine read or human read
22:19:59 [JF]
there are some differences (described video) where there is a difference between text-based and human narrated
22:20:12 [JF]
but the value is that everything is called the same thing across the board
22:20:34 [JF]
so that the emergent technology will be accessing the same kind of media as well_ consistancy
22:20:46 [JF]
be it digital broadcasting, the web, etc.
22:21:24 [JF]
there are mechanical questions, but should we first determine that we understand what is being sought?
22:21:31 [plh]
"We are therefore defining a small set of names, most of which do not cover accessibility, and we hope that by the time a more complete name-set is needed we will be able to refer to HTML5"
22:21:55 [plh]
"we identify a specification, registration authority, or other source by using a URI (normally expected to be a URN), and then provide values from the set defined by that source."
22:22:01 [plh]
22:22:01 [janina]
22:22:08 [JF]
JB: perhaps we need to jump to the next question, which is do we need a registry, and where does that live?
22:22:08 [janina]
ack p
22:22:41 [MikeSmith]
MikeSmith has joined #html-a11y
22:22:52 [JF]
PLH: their liaison statement is saying that they would like to use the same nameset that we are defining in HTML5
22:23:05 [JF]
the second statement, they are using a URN mechanism to define those terms
22:23:12 [JF]
and would like the W3C to provide this
22:23:20 [JF]
they didn't appear to ask for a registery
22:23:32 [JF]
nor to make our list extensible
22:23:46 [paulc]
22:23:51 [JF]
their only request is that they want to use the same things we are defining, and could we provide a URN
22:24:37 [JF]
They want to ensure the link remains between themselves and us
22:24:45 [JF]
Registration Authority by URI
22:24:47 [paulc] identifies the values for the enumerated attribute but does not define URIs for the keywords
22:25:06 [silvia] <- even better
22:25:12 [MikeSmith]
MikeSmith has joined #html-a11y
22:25:14 [janina]
22:25:18 [janina]
ack p
22:25:24 [JF]
PC: want to speak dierctly to that
22:25:43 [JF]
the track element identifies the keywords that are mapped to <track>
22:25:53 [JF]
can we provide a link to those
22:26:00 [janina]
22:26:01 [silvia]
zakim, unmute me
22:26:02 [Zakim]
silvia should no longer be muted
22:26:06 [janina]
22:26:20 [JF]
PHL: providing a URI
22:26:24 [silvia]
zakim, mute me
22:26:24 [Zakim]
silvia should now be muted
22:26:25 [plh]
22:26:30 [JF]
SP: Provided a URI for track kinds
22:26:43 [plh]
22:26:49 [plh]
22:26:49 [silvia]
22:26:54 [plh]
22:27:00 [plh]
22:27:01 [JF]
PHL: we have URI's for each in the spec
22:27:04 [janina]
ack ja
22:27:06 [silvia]
22:27:15 [plh]
q+ janina
22:27:16 [paulc]
Thank you, plh
22:27:25 [JF]
JB: we have had conversations several weeks back, where these were discussed
22:27:40 [JF]
and that they needed to be referenced by more than the HTML5 spec
22:27:40 [paulc]
Another piece of magic:
22:27:42 [MikeSmith]
MikeSmith has joined #html-a11y
22:27:56 [JF]
we perhaps need to have these captured in a more geneirc location
22:28:09 [paulc]
What would happen if the semantics of the keyword changed? Would the URI change?
22:28:10 [JF]
we discussed capturing this in a PF space
22:28:32 [JF]
JS: Part of the reason is that we will be unhappy if we do not have 2 additional pieces of information
22:28:54 [JF]
10 internationalization support for the human-readable string and the second is a clear definition
22:29:06 [janina]
22:29:11 [JF]
the spec might be able to give the definition, but likely not provide the i18n support
22:29:17 [silvia]
ack me
22:29:22 [janina]
ack s
22:29:26 [janina]
ack janina
22:29:46 [JF]
SP: Just verified document, and they speak specifically of both types of track - text tracks and media tracks
22:29:55 [JF]
so we need to provide a link/url to both lists
22:29:58 [JF]
both are in tables
22:30:09 [JF]
or we can make a list of URLs pointing to individual values
22:30:13 [JF]
which we already have
22:30:13 [MikeSmith]
MikeSmith has joined #html-a11y
22:30:31 [janina]
22:30:32 [JF]
JS: important to note that we are not complete in defining the list
22:30:32 [silvia]
zakim, mute me
22:30:32 [Zakim]
silvia should now be muted
22:30:43 [JF]
JB: agrees tht we are not finished, but believes we are close
22:31:05 [JF]
the other issue is questioning the wisdom of pointing directly at HTML% spec as it is far from finished
22:31:17 [JF]
and believes the 3GPP is under a time crunch
22:31:26 [paulc]
22:31:44 [JF]
so we likely need a list of these values external to the HTML5 spec
22:31:57 [janina]
22:32:08 [JF]
JS: believes we are close as well, but tweaks remain
22:32:23 [silvia]
zakim, unmute me
22:32:23 [Zakim]
silvia should no longer be muted
22:32:29 [JF]
JB: if there is follow on work, could that be changing these values as well
22:32:35 [janina]
ack pa
22:32:43 [MikeSmith]
MikeSmith has joined #html-a11y
22:32:44 [JF]
PC: wants to partially answer Judy's question
22:32:49 [JF]
if the URI's will be dated or not
22:32:57 [paulc]
22:33:00 [JF]
the examples that PLH provided are not dated
22:33:35 [JF]
poses the question or what happens if that URI changes
22:33:41 [janina]
22:33:42 [JF]
the heart of the question is stable URIs
22:33:50 [JF]
PLH: believes we have a plan
22:34:04 [JF]
we cannot give 'stable' versions until we are in Rec status
22:34:14 [JF]
unless they lean to a dated version
22:34:26 [janina]
22:34:41 [JF]
so whether they point to a stable version in HTML5 or in an outside list, if we need to change them in relationship to HTML5 we will change them
22:34:57 [JF]
JS: wants to reask about what if new sork might change this list
22:35:08 [JF]
don't actually believe thus will have a large impact
22:35:17 [silvia]
zakim, mute me
22:35:17 [Zakim]
silvia should now be muted
22:35:19 [JF]
but we will likely continiue to better define and deliniate them
22:35:23 [plh]
22:35:42 [JF]
we have examples just in the last few days that show how things are changing
22:36:15 [janina]
22:36:21 [janina]
ack ph
22:36:40 [JF]
PLH: what is interesting is the list that the #GPP sent us that does not match ours
22:36:52 [JF]
have we ver considered using their values?
22:36:52 [silvia]
zakim, unmute me
22:36:52 [Zakim]
silvia should no longer be muted
22:37:14 [silvia]
22:37:26 [JF]
JS: don't recall looking at their list and saying is there anyhting missing?
22:37:44 [JF]
we also looked at the values used in OGG, 3GPP, suggestions from David Singer, and others
22:37:49 [janina]
22:37:58 [JF]
we had a large list and did a consistant and thorough review
22:38:11 [JF]
many of what 3GPP had suggested were already defined by us
22:38:47 [janina]
22:38:56 [JF]
JB: I think PLH is asking if we are already 'baked' on our terms, or is there some of their terms that we could adopt
22:39:06 [JF]
we did the mapping, but what does that mean moving forward
22:39:20 [JF]
JS: believes we were more thorough
22:39:30 [JF]
don't recall a large discussion on naming
22:39:46 [JF]
we have tried to be very precise going back to when we were defining user requirements
22:40:21 [JF]
JB: in other words, we beleived our terms were more disambiguating than theirs
22:40:31 [JF]
JS: happy to coninue having further discussion
22:40:37 [janina]
22:40:46 [janina]
ack ph
22:40:54 [janina]
ack pl
22:41:01 [JF]
PLH: still not clear on how to answer the stability issue
22:41:14 [JF]
JB: perhaps we just tel lthem where we are, and offer our projections
22:41:24 [JF]
JS: Clarrify we are after the same goals
22:41:49 [JF]
PLH: the other issue was that just pointing to the spec does not address the i18n issue
22:42:20 [JF]
we can keep the current list in the spec, and create a second duplicate list (like a registery) that also provides the translations
22:42:28 [JF]
we just need to ensure they remain in sync
22:42:41 [janina]
22:42:52 [JF]
the other is to extract that from the spec, and define it elsewhere and pointing to it in the HTML5 spec
22:43:14 [JF]
JB: wich resurfaces the question, and argues that they should reside outside of the spec and be a reference
22:43:29 [JF]
PLH: we need to bring this to the Working Group and be sure they understand and agree
22:43:40 [JF]
so before we can respond, we need to decide internally
22:43:43 [JF]
22:44:11 [JF]
JB: if it is clear that they will be used in other specs, then that argues for external registery
22:44:30 [JF]
JS: believes there is relevance to web on tv and real-time communications
22:44:49 [JF]
PLH: don't think that web on TV is relevant, but real-time might be interested
22:45:09 [janina]
22:45:12 [janina]
ack jf
22:45:25 [silvia]
22:45:51 [MikeSmith]
MikeSmith has joined #html-a11y
22:46:04 [janina]
22:46:07 [JF]
JF: there is precedence in moving registries like this out of the spec (ie: microdata/microformats)
22:46:12 [janina]
ack s
22:46:16 [silvia]
ack me
22:46:19 [JF]
JB: there are likely additional parties that care about this
22:46:35 [JF]
SP: don't think that this is a good idea to have it outside of the spec
22:46:43 [JF]
it means to lists to maintain
22:47:33 [JF]
thinks that HTML5 should be the definitive text
22:47:52 [JF]
JS: don't see a need for i18n
22:47:59 [JF]
SP: they are just string identifiers
22:48:22 [MikeSmith]
MikeSmith has joined #html-a11y
22:48:26 [janina]
22:48:34 [JF]
JS: think we want consistent taxonomies based on both machine and human readable values
22:48:44 [paulc]
+1 to Sylvia's point about the URIs being strings
22:48:53 [JF]
PLH: agrees with SP on the string value issue
22:48:58 [JF]
with no translation
22:49:55 [silvia]
zakim, mute me
22:49:55 [Zakim]
silvia should now be muted
22:50:18 [janina]
22:50:42 [JF]
JB: understands the concern about one authoritve list to maintain
22:50:57 [JF]
but concerned to hear "and if we need to add something then we can"
22:51:21 [JF]
if/when HTML5 is Rec there will be little appetite to reopen
22:51:28 [plh]
22:51:42 [JF]
JS: PF also had concerns that the strings could be consistantly translatable
22:51:45 [JF]
22:51:51 [janina]
ack pl
22:51:55 [MikeSmith]
MikeSmith has joined #html-a11y
22:51:57 [JF]
we are talking about a specification thta is written completel in english
22:52:30 [JF]
so there is no difference between other values that we have in english only that the i18n community already uses
22:52:34 [janina]
22:53:47 [janina]
22:54:12 [JF]
PLH: can see the use-case of keeping this separate as well as integrated
22:54:58 [janina]
22:55:10 [JF]
PLH: if we have an external list, then we need to define what happens when a new value is introduced
22:55:33 [JF]
PC: these are a numerated list of values, which means there is a finte set in the spec
22:55:53 [JF]
JS: this is a relatively new area, which means we can't be sure
22:55:55 [janina]
22:56:36 [JF]
JB: believes PLH's argument about browser support is compelling, but will media players also be drawing upon these as well, and might be more nimble in adoption
22:56:52 [JF]
so are we only looking at browsers?
22:57:16 [JF]
PLH: so we are talking about non-HTML use cases as well
22:57:28 [JF]
PLH: Not clear that 3GPP wants to use those values
22:57:48 [janina]
22:57:54 [JF]
any kind of HTML5 implementation?
22:58:13 [JF]
JS: next steps?
22:58:32 [JF]
JB: seems we are leaning towards inside of the HTML5 spec
22:58:56 [JF]
and we've raised several questions against that
22:59:15 [JF]
does it make sense to look at this more fully and try and reach a consensus
22:59:31 [JF]
JS: thinks there is a split between inside and outside of spec thoughts
22:59:44 [JF]
JB: can we continue to discuss on list for another week?
22:59:55 [JF]
PLH: perhaps we can have David Singer on the call next week
23:00:13 [janina]
23:00:19 [JF]
JS: should we respond with an update that we are not 'complete" yet but under active discussion
23:00:42 [JF]
JB: will PLH coordinate with Janina to advance an update to 3GPP?
23:01:03 [JF]
PLH: is that ok with Paul as well? (Paul agrees)
23:01:18 [JF]
JS: will return to this next week
23:01:30 [JF]
JS: thanks and see you all next week
23:01:33 [Zakim]
23:01:35 [JF]
meeting concluded
23:01:37 [Zakim]
23:01:41 [Zakim]
23:01:42 [Zakim]
23:01:43 [Zakim]
23:01:44 [Zakim]
23:02:20 [JF]
zakim, bye
23:02:20 [Zakim]
leaving. As of this point the attendees were +1.650.468.aaaa, JF, +44.844.800.aabb, Sean, Janina, silvia, [Microsoft], Judy, Michael_Cooper, Plh
23:02:20 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #html-a11y
23:02:45 [JF]
rrsagent, make logs public
23:02:57 [JF]
rrsagent, make minutes
23:02:57 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate JF
23:04:05 [JF]
zakim, please part
23:14:21 [janina]
janina has left #html-a11y
23:14:27 [janina]
janina has joined #html-a11y
23:39:13 [davidb]
davidb has joined #html-a11y