HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference -- 05 Apr 2012

<trackbot> Date: 05 April 2012

<janina> Meeting: HTML-A11Y Task Force Teleconference

<janina> Scribe: Steve_Faulkner

<JF> scribe: JF

Rich: we be going to California for the F2F

Judy: we need to narrow in on a time for time at the F2F for the canvas discussion

Subteam Reports: Text; Canvas; ARIA Mappings

Janina: we need to brainstorm about that

<paulc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012Apr/0057.html

Paul: just sent out an email to TF archive regarding F2F - call for agenda items

<Stevef> here now

<Stevef> paul: put info for f2f on wiki in regards to taskforce matters

Paul: part of the is a wiki for scheduling those types of meetings

<paulc> F2F agenda wiki: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/May2012Agenda

Rich: will likely need 60 - 90 minutes to discuss the 2 approaches
... there are some clear additional requirements beyond hit-testing - looks like full-blown paths like SVG

<Stevef> RS: for a canvas discussion, if right people are in room, 1-11/2 hrs, 2 approaches, Ians is heavier weight, does about the same thing for a11y, discuss 2 on table and discuss. Ian wrote chnages with extra requirements, paths in canvas like svg

<scribe> scribe: Stevef

RS: will microsoft accept the additional stuff in Ians spec text?

Janina: imprtant to have in discussion, Ian h, ted c, frank O

RS: additional roles and labels info in ians proposal, but no indication of use cases

Judy: need ample time to discuss, get definitive direction, so that the approach doesn't get changed again while people are trying to build accessibility solutions on it.,

RS: so 2-3 hrs

janina: morning or afternoon session

RS: hopefully get consensed proposal, jonas from mozilla maybe maybe rob o'callahan
... jonas was supportive of hit testing

<paulc> FYI, Jonas Sicking has registered for WebApps and WebAppSec but NOT for HTML WG F2F.

JS: get everyone requirements on table, clear articulation, maybe gather info in advance, come to agreement about requirments from stakeholders
... rich available either thru/fri?

RS: need to pick a day

JS: frank wants 1 day not 2

RS: chnages to canvas more than a11y
... can live with either proposal

JF: read this and discussion below, re transcript etc http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20120404#l-791

PC: thusday afternoon immediatley after lunch
... rich ask people to be there

Janina: bring it up in html wg call, who can put on wiki? rich?

Judy: text subteam met tues april 3rd working through pending issues, meta generator, longdesc getting back into incorrect guidance in HTML5, still additional co-ordination items: issue 204, timeline for aria 1.1 not completed with planned timeline for html5
... noted some remaining work on 204 clarification needed, to align guidenaqce in html5/aria. discussed additional co-ordination on issue 203, static video, paused video. wnated to note didn't get into discussion, but deadline imminenet on 203, sam was asking a few questions
... questions was if longdesc is re-instated in spec will 203 be resolved? the details of how longdesc is resolved will effect it.

JF: re-instate longdes as per HTML4, then new chnage proposal to extend longdesc

Paul: thought we were only about 203? deadline for 194 is today

Judy: more subteam report: meta name generator discussion, about updated chnage proposal, focus on info helpful to process stage, how 2 new bugs instersected with resolution startegy, ended up leif withdrew bugs for now
... issue 30 longdesc - timeline and next steps, chairs intent to complete process on 204 then take up issue 30

Paul: 204 has call for alkternate closes on 18th april and you can be sure that if we see a new chnage proposal will review quickly,

JS: taskforce will look at section 5.1.2 to make sure that whatever chnage proposal we provide will bring html5/aria/aria UA guide into concordance

paul: provided reveiw comments but didn't give deadline to make changes on reviews, will go to survey quickly as possible

judy: do not hold off, so we can get back to issue 30

paul: so hopefully we can get to decision on 204 and move onto issue 30 survey, expect to occur in May

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=652635

<JF> +Q

RS: rich doesn't like the mozilla approach, when you do describedby to anchor, anchor does not have to be in vicinity of item being describedby, you also add additional authoring complexity, would rather inbuilt mechanism
... prefers tighter mechanism
... had meeting with d bolter, d mazzonis, s pfieffer agreed needed in context , adding in aria stepping over boundarys

JF: putting link offscreen?

RS: trying to provide mainstream feature
... mozilla implementation is a hack

<LeifHSilli> http://malform.no/blog/an-aria-for-long-description-links

leif: wrote blog post would like feedback

judy: concerened that there will be infinite number of design approaches

RS: if we are going to do it in non aria attribute, why would you not take longdesc and use it on all elements, its not well defined so improve it

<LeifHSilli> must leave

JS: at very least will need to be added to video

<JF> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/aria-implementation/#exclude_elements

JS: still not happy with current langauge around hidden in the UA guide
... 1 more item; issue 194 now has 2 proposals new proposal seems to have merit, please come up to speed on the various proposals and if we as a taskforce support any particular proposal

JF: ted has done fair amount of investigation, if we can get browsers to implement what he is proposing thats the goal

- DRAFT -

HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

05 Apr 2012

Attendees

Contents

Subteam Reports: Text; Canvas; ARIA Mappings

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output