HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference -- 07 Jun 2012

<trackbot> Date: 07 June 2012

<paulc> IRC only today

<MikeSmith> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012Jun/0013.html

<MikeSmith> "Questions on ARIA and HTML interactions for aria-required and aria-invalid"

<scribe> scribe: Léonie Watson

<JF> scribe: JF

Issue-204

MS: Where does 204 stand?

JB: perhaps Janina can provide an overview

JS: believe we are waiting on Ted/Jonas proposal side

status is that we are close - trying to bring the 2 together, but the suggestion was for RFC 2119 MUST or SHOULD language

PF filed a strong objection on that kind of language

hope to re-start that convesation

appears that the details however are not tht far apart

still trying to avoid a survey

CYNS: sounds correct

<LeonieW> scribenick: LeonieW

Issue-201 & 205 Status

<JF> scribe: JF

it appears that some actions after the F2F may have been dropped or missed

seems another action was also create - assigned to issue 201 instead of Issue 205

Rich has discussed some updates, per request, on Issue 207

but because the action association in the record was wrong, may have been missed by the chairs

so now trying to figure out whree things went astray

need to write up a few more notes - have a few questions

meanwhile - there is a survey out on I205 with a question that might be of interest to people

possible that there may be a need for additional time

does anyone know who entered the action after the F2F - have looked at the log and it is unclear

MS: unsure, and we've discussed this internally already

JB: wondering if anyone here was directly involved in case it could help clarify intent

seems however that there is some cross-wiring. Meanwhile there is a survey that may have not gotten appropriate attention but expires tonight

(Judy searches for link)

appears that there is only 1 response to date

<Judy> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/issue-205-objection-poll/results

if nothing changes with regard to terms of survey, then it may be worth looking at today

Judy is drafting some notes to try and untangle the crossed wires after the F2F however

MS: is there any new action we need to assign for this, or heads-up to anyone in particulr

<Judy> i have an action to complete the write-up and share that with the html co-chairs

JB: I need to write this up and share with the CoChairs

<paulc> Note that WG members don't need to respond to the survey if their positions are already reflected in the CPs under survey

JS: only 1 response from Rich

I think I will respond in a similar vein- if someone does this it will cause significant issues

Issue-199 Status

<scribe> scribe: leonie

<paulc> >I think I will respond in a similar vein

<LeonieW> MS: Do we need to cover this today?

<paulc> Note that repeating arguments already made in a straw poll is discouraged. The Charis are not counting votes or responses.

<LeonieW> JS: I had an action, but I'm afraid I wasn't able to work on it.

Issue-194 Consensus Call

<LeonieW> MS: Did the concensus call for 194 happen?

<LeonieW> JS: We pulled back as it was still fluid.

<LeonieW> JS: We're planning another call tomorrow to keep working towards a single proposal.

<LeonieW> JF: We're close, but we're aware we're up against a deadline.

<LeonieW> JF: We've agreed to set aside the discussion about interactive transcripts for now.

<LeonieW> JF: The message to the chairs is that we know they're patiently waiting, but we honestly believe we're making progress towards a single proposal.

<LeonieW> MS: Eric and Ted were on the media call?

<LeonieW> JF: Yes. Commitment is high.

<MikeSmith> Media subteam call from June 5

The call tuesday ran close to 2 hours, and we are making serious progress

Issue-31C Status

<LeonieW> MS: Judy and I have been updating the proposal based on the feedback from the chairs when it was rejected previously.

<LeonieW> JB: I have some updates pending. Status is that it's not quite ready for review.

<LeonieW> MS: The aim is for the issue to be reopened so the group can discuss it further.

<LeonieW> MS: It should be back with the chairs on Friday.

<LeonieW> JF: You mentioned that Glazoo had comments about this proposal.

<LeonieW> MS: I'll check the thread.

<LeonieW> JB: I think they may already be captured in my updates, but we'll check.

Subteam Reports: Bug Triage; Text; ARIA Mappings

<LeonieW> MS: The media sub team has been covered.

<LeonieW> MS: Think we can skip bug triage and mapping sub teams too.

<LeonieW> MS: Text sub team?

<LeonieW> JB: It doesn't look as though the minutes were sent through to the list.

<Judy> the agenda was here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012Jun/0014.html

<Judy> minutes: http://www.w3.org/2012/06/05-text-minutes.html

<LeonieW> JB: We looked at longdesc and concerns that 204 is looping a bit.

<LeonieW> JS: We need to restart the conversation about how we reach agreement about the details section, or it needs to go to survey.

<LeonieW> JB: We discussed 31b. David took an action to create a matrix of issues, and to set a path for moving forward.

<LeonieW> DM: It'll bring together documentation, bugs and violations ofWCAG 2

<LeonieW> s//WCAG 3WCAG/

Other Business

<scribe> scribe: JF

Questions on ARIA and HTML interactions for aria-required and aria-invalid

<MikeSmith> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012Jun/0013.html

<scribe> scribe: Leonie

<LeonieW> CS: The questions related to the relationship between ARIA and HTML attributes. For example if an input has aria-required, but no HTML required, what is the outcome?

<LeonieW> CS: I think aria-required should be honoured. That would be good for backwards compatibility. It's unclear in the spec.

<LeonieW> JF: I ran some tests on this a while back. I believe aria-required is being announced, by screen readers whether or not HTML required is set.

<LeonieW> CS: My concern isn't what's happening now, but what the specification says.

<LeonieW> SF: If required isn't present, but aria-required is, the ARIA is available via the API.

<LeonieW> SF: The problem with this in general is that when you put required on a control, the user is immediately told on first focus that the field is invalid. Technically that's true because the field is empty, but it's confusing too.

<LeonieW> CS: My concern is that some browsers will be aware of aria-required but not required. It's more likely that in the beginning the absence of required is due to the developer not knowing abuot it, rather than it intentionally being left out.

<LeonieW> CS: So aria-required should be honoured, even when required isn't present.

<LeonieW> SF: Yes.

<LeonieW> JF: We need more language to make this clear? In the HTML5 spec or the ARIA implementation guide?

<LeonieW> CS: Probably in both.

<LeonieW> MS: We'll need agreement if we want to propose a change to the HTML5 spec. We can agree changes to the ARIA documents on the call.

<LeonieW> SF: There will be a behaviour change depending on the HTML doctype.

<LeonieW> SF: It should be detailed in the ARIA implementation. It would be good to have it in the HTML5 spec, but adding it could open up a can of worms.

<janina> I need to go to my ISO mtg. Bye for now!

<LeonieW> CS: I'll put something into the UA guide, and raise a bug against the HTML5 spec.

<LeonieW> MS: Any other business?

- DRAFT -

HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

07 Jun 2012

Attendees

Contents