14:56:19 RRSAgent has joined #html-a11y
14:56:19 logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/09/06-html-a11y-irc
14:56:21 RRSAgent, make logs world
14:56:21 Zakim has joined #html-a11y
14:56:23 Zakim, this will be 2119
14:56:23 ok, trackbot; I see WAI_PFWG(HTML TF)10:00AM scheduled to start 56 minutes ago
14:56:24 Meeting: HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference
14:56:24 Date: 06 September 2012
14:59:46 WAI_PFWG(HTML TF)10:00AM has now started
14:59:48 +Cooper
15:00:39 +John_Foliot
15:01:14 Stevef has joined #html-a11y
15:01:22 David has joined #html-a11y
15:01:48 +David_MacDonald
15:01:55 JF has joined #html-a11y
15:02:00 plh has joined #html-a11y
15:02:09 +Judy
15:02:12 +Plh
15:02:16 zakim, call Mike
15:02:17 ok, MikeSmith; the call is being made
15:02:17 +Mike
15:03:11 +??P18
15:03:19 zakim, ??P18 is Janina
15:03:19 +Janina; got it
15:04:51 scribe: MichaelC
15:05:19 zakim, who's noisy
15:05:19 I don't understand 'who's noisy', David
15:05:30 zakim, who is making noise?
15:05:37 chair: Mike_Smith
15:05:41 David, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Judy (17%), Plh (5%), Mike (73%)
15:06:14 +Cynthia_Shelly
15:06:27 topic: HTML-ISSUE-30 longdesc
15:07:28 ms: this is the largest outstanding issue
15:07:40 jb: what about dependency on HTML-ISSUE-204 formal objection?
15:08:08 ms: the formal objection is outside of this forum, we're just awaiting director decision
15:08:09 richardschwerdtfe has joined #html-a11y
15:08:16 q+
15:08:21 q?
15:08:43 jb: but because it impacts HTML-ISSUE-30, would be better to wait for that before discussing
15:08:46 +Rich
15:08:58 plh: change proposals updated?
15:09:22 jb: some discussions in progress on both HTML-ISSUE-204 and HTML-ISSUE-30
15:09:37 didn't want to do multiple calls for consensus
15:10:05 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012Aug/0285.html Minutes from last week a11y TF telcon
15:10:11 since some text on HTML-ISSUE-30 can't be finalized until decision on HTML-ISSUE-204 is available
15:10:40 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012Aug/0284.html Minutes from last week a11y TF telcon
15:10:50 did hope to get Laura's agreement on pending text
15:11:02 q?
15:11:09 ack plh
15:11:31 confirm, PLH?
15:11:40 plh: yes, though TF still should needed update
15:12:10 ms: anything further on these two issues for now?
15:12:28 jf: is there now proposal to remove all ARIA from HTML5?
15:12:31 q+ Judy
15:12:43 ack Judy
15:12:44 rs: didn't we spend last two years agreeing?
15:12:52 ms: not sure I'd interpret it that way
15:12:58 rs: lots of cycles spent
15:13:02 ms: not quite agreement
15:13:03 ack j
15:13:16 q?
15:13:31 jb: message on list about that was unfortunate
15:13:37 there is a lot of history
15:13:42 +??P0
15:14:10 zakim, +??PO is me
15:14:10 sorry, Stevef, I do not recognize a party named '+??PO'
15:14:12 logistically, offloading ARIA would slow down work done to date
15:14:17 zakim, ??P0 is Steve_Faulkner
15:14:17 +Steve_Faulkner; got it
15:14:46 whats the mute command?
15:14:57 rs: rest of the world views accessibility in HTML5 negatively
15:15:04 ms: not a productive comment
15:15:15 +Q
15:15:23 anything actionable?
15:15:50 rs: been working with W3C for a long time
15:15:54 ms: lots of people have
15:15:58 q?
15:16:28 rs: I care about W3C work, but would be very negative
15:17:16 +Judy.a
15:17:20 plh: note none of the HTML chairs are present to represent themselves
15:17:22 q+
15:17:24 ack j
15:17:38 jf: was Sam's note personal or on behalf of the three chairs?
15:17:41 plh: the three
15:17:50 q?
15:18:13 jf: then I share Rich's frustration
15:18:49 rs: what actionable could we do?
15:18:50 q+
15:18:58 q?
15:19:03 ms: venting in the calls is not it
15:19:22 q?
15:19:41 q+ Judy
15:20:04 ack Stevef
15:20:16 i proposed a change to teds text https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18744
15:20:28 jb: asks MS to recuse as chair
15:20:50 -Steve_Faulkner
15:21:10 +??P0
15:21:15 sf: see above
15:21:22 zakim, ??P0 is Steve_Faulkner
15:21:22 +Steve_Faulkner; got it
15:21:56 ms: asked MC to get PFWG review of a proposed revised wording
15:22:01 Judy has joined #html-a11y
15:22:06 q?
15:22:13 -Judy
15:22:34 +Q
15:22:43 q+
15:23:14 jb: why do this when Formal Objection in process?
15:23:20 q?
15:23:27 ms: understood revised wording from James might help
15:23:40 rs: open to new wording, need to review how it would work
15:23:58 ms: would like to find agreement without needing to finalize Formal Objection
15:24:03 jb: that is already in play
15:24:09 ms: still not too late to try to find agreement
15:24:11 ack next
15:24:13 ack plh
15:24:33 ack Judy
15:24:43 i agree with mike that we should try to reach consensus without formal objection
15:25:27 jb: procedural problem with sending to PFWG staff contact without confirmation of receipt and not copying PFWG chair
15:25:33 aq?
15:25:35 q?
15:25:40 q+
15:26:00 ack JF
15:26:23 jf: responded to bug 18745
15:26:31 but no reaction yet
15:26:35 q?
15:26:57 seems to be "fast and loose" with assistive technology expectations
15:27:28 concern that you can't have invisible content not accessible to keyboard users
15:27:40 addressing that would lead me to be able to drop my formal objection
15:28:08 ms: from whom are you looking for action?
15:28:25 q?
15:28:35 jf: HTML chairs
15:28:55 they looked at least amount of objection, not technically problematic objections
15:29:04 we were so close to consensus earlier this summer
15:29:32 subsequent decision has broken that
15:29:33 ack richardschwerdtfe
15:29:43 Questions unanswered: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18745
15:29:57 rs: talked with JamesC yesterday
15:30:26 my reasons for formal objection:
15:30:37 q+
15:30:40 authors using ARIA to refer to hidden content
15:30:44 they intend that to be hidden
15:31:10 like a tab that controls a hidden tabpanel
15:31:21 it's loose about how the semantics would be exposed
15:31:32 Maciej's proposal is to render that
15:31:44 but that counters author expectation
15:32:04 this sort of thing causes problems in tools we work on like SocialMail
15:32:23 and counters UI design intent
15:32:50 JamesC suggested that in the future there should be ability to reference content sequestered in an iframe or separate document
15:32:59 +Q to say that without rendering, you cannot show tab focus of hyperlinks, without showing focus of hyperlinks it contravenes WCAG.
15:33:03 and show the DOM tree of the target of the reference
15:33:06 this isn't fully vetted
15:33:10 but is a future goal
15:33:18 from them
15:33:36 so I want to allow for this, but not break author's expectations now
15:34:08 also, note browsers don't expose hidden content to AT
15:34:11 pollutes the UI
15:34:25 and performance hit for browser
15:34:34 has to go through and expose stuff that's not being rendered
15:34:54 the ARIA relationship primarily affected is aria-describedby
15:35:27 q- later
15:35:28 propose we say something like "in the future, user agents my have the ability to expose semantics of hidden descriptions" and encourage providing those semantics
15:35:41 but current wording is too loos
15:35:43 s/loos/loose/
15:36:04 ms: that's the best summary of the points of disagreement I've heard
15:36:11 that's what we needed to hear
15:36:14 q+
15:36:14 q?
15:36:18 ack j
15:36:18 JF, you wanted to say that without rendering, you cannot show tab focus of hyperlinks, without showing focus of hyperlinks it contravenes WCAG.
15:36:23 ack janina
15:37:15 js: question is who's in charge of when text becomes visible
15:38:02 user requirements may be incompatible with author intent
15:38:18 JF+
15:38:49 when that's not clear, we have a problem
15:38:58 it would be OK for HTML to have an attribute to solve this problem
15:39:17 but not to shoehorn the use case into an (ARIA) attribute intended for other uses
15:39:23 ms: that's also a helpful input
15:39:35 q?
15:40:27 jf: my part of this is that if you don't have tab-focusable content rendered, it contravenes WCAG
15:40:50 which is a widely referenced set of requirements
15:41:12 ms: think some people may not understand these dependencies
15:41:40 jf: we've been trying to explain all this, how else can we explain it?
15:42:06 q+
15:42:08 http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/navigation-mechanisms-focus-visible.html
15:42:13 ms: let's not focus on communication problems of the past, let's set a path forward
15:42:15 ack plh
15:42:16 ack plh
15:42:26 q+
15:42:40 plh: it's clear that people here don't want to remove ARIA from HTML
15:42:51 that's an important message to the chairs
15:42:56 q?
15:43:00 hope Rich's explanation was well scribed
15:43:12 rs: was it clear?
15:43:29 jb: yes, though it wasn't new
15:43:43 +1 to Judy's comment that all of the information surfacing today has been said multiple times
15:44:00 there is a lot of documentation around all this stuff
15:44:32 am worried about fundamental communication flaw
15:44:38 formal objection is nearing completion
15:44:42 ack d
15:44:43 q?
15:44:43 ack David
15:44:45 q+
15:45:08 q?
15:45:37 ack richardschwerdtfe
15:45:49 dmd: worried about a statement about future plans, could be like a WCAG 1 "until user agents..." clause which were so problematic
15:46:12 q?
15:46:41 rs: willing to work on wording that would address these concerns
15:46:46 ms: would be great
15:47:10 work with James at least, Ted and he seem in sync with each other
15:47:20 rs: will start on it, though out for 2 weeks
15:47:36 also reiterate that removing ARIA from the HTML spec isn't the solution
15:47:45 ms: pretty much everyone here agrees on that
15:47:58 ack JF
15:48:03 ack Judy
15:48:34 agenda?
15:48:58 q?
15:49:44 rs: asks SteveF to help with crafting text as change proposal
15:49:46 sf: ok
15:50:13 topic: Status of alt guidance
15:51:02 jb: a number of people [text team?] have been working on details requested by HTML chairs
15:51:08 have compiled lists of buggy guidance
15:51:32 presented some stuff a while ago
15:51:40 --> http://www.davidmacd.com/WCAG/WAI/buggy.html Alt Guidance and Alt text in the HTML5 Document
15:51:43 requested to us that we clean it up
15:51:45 RRSAgent, make minutes
15:51:45 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/09/06-html-a11y-minutes.html MikeSmith
15:51:47 q+
15:51:47 working on thta
15:51:53 q?
15:51:54 s/thta/that/
15:52:09 wrt buggy guidance on how to do alt
15:52:24 some actions on chairs were not completed
15:52:35 to remove stuff from core spec
15:52:55 hopefully this can be resolved by chairs and editors
15:53:01 since at the moment there is conflicting guidance
15:53:18 once that's cleaned up, want to continue discussion of housing the alt text guidance in the WCAG WG
15:53:33 this is the sort of stuff that would normally be done there
15:53:51 immediate status is that David and I will meet soon to sort out remaining details
15:53:55 then take to HTML chairs
15:54:14 ack plh
15:54:17 q?
15:54:17 and follow up with editors or WG decision process as appropriate
15:54:35 plh: 2 parts
15:54:41 first part is to remove some references
15:54:54 jb: yes, not appropriate to provide guidance of that sort in the core HTML spec
15:55:05 problem for maintenance, and invites other problems
15:55:41 q+
15:55:46 ms: chair position is that if you have problems with spec text, file individual bugs
15:55:59 though we see that the issue is with the entire section
15:56:13 not appropriate to file super fine-grained bugs in this case
15:56:19 q+ to clarify
15:56:27 just need to say the entire section is not appropriate for inclusion in the spec
15:56:41 q?
15:56:43 q+
15:56:44