15:56:33 RRSAgent has joined #html-a11y
15:56:33 logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/02/19-html-a11y-irc
15:56:35 RRSAgent, make logs world
15:56:35 Zakim has joined #html-a11y
15:56:37 Zakim, this will be 2119
15:56:37 ok, trackbot; I see WAI_PFWG(HTML TF)10:00AM scheduled to start 56 minutes ago
15:56:38 Meeting: HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference
15:56:38 Date: 19 February 2015
15:56:39 agenda?
15:58:47 Chair: chaals
15:58:47 agenda+ Agenda revision? (until :05)
15:58:47 agenda+ action item review - https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/open
15:58:47 agenda+ Longdesc decision?
15:58:47 agenda+ Canvas specification
15:58:47 agenda+ HTML after5 plan - http://darobin.github.io/after5/html-plan.html and Work items
16:00:04 darobin has joined #html-a11y
16:00:34 WAI_PFWG(HTML TF)10:00AM has now started
16:00:41 +[IPcaller]
16:00:53 zakim, call chaals-es
16:00:53 ok, chaals; the call is being made
16:00:54 +Chaals
16:00:54 +[IPcaller.a]
16:01:08 Zakim, [IPcaller.a] is me
16:01:08 +darobin; got it
16:01:17 +JF
16:01:30 zakim, [ipcal is léonie
16:01:30 +léonie; got it
16:01:36 +Joanmarie_Diggs
16:02:09 JF has joined #html-a11y
16:02:50 zakim, pick a scribe
16:02:50 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose JF
16:03:04 Judy has joined #html-a11y
16:03:10 scribe: JF
16:03:26 agenda?
16:03:30 +Judy
16:03:36 +??P27
16:03:50 zakim, ??p27 is janina
16:03:50 +janina; got it
16:03:51 zakim, ??P27 is me
16:03:51 I already had ??P27 as janina, janina
16:04:02 zakim, take up item 5
16:04:02 agendum 5. "HTML after5 plan - http://darobin.github.io/after5/html-plan.html and Work items" taken up [from chaals]
16:04:17 +Liam
16:04:25 CM: welcomes Robin
16:04:53 CM: looking to formulate plans for the next months, so we need a plan. Robin has some thoughts to offer
16:05:09 http://darobin.github.io/after5/html-plan.html
16:05:12 RB: happy to share, and can return to future calls to discuss further as required
16:05:30 +[IPcaller]
16:05:39 RB: 13 - 15 page document linked. Suggest a deeper read off-line
16:05:50 Regrets+ Aardrian
16:05:55 IanPouncey has joined #html-a11y
16:05:59 high-level plan is to work to make html more creative, exciting, etc.
16:06:23 much of the energy over the past months was to ship html5, now we can expand
16:06:40 one objective is to reduce overhead in the production of the spec - required a lot of resources
16:06:42 +[IPcaller.a]
16:06:52 Zakim, IPcaller.a is me
16:06:52 +IanPouncey; got it
16:07:25 RB: idea now is to shift the efforts of the work on newer more interesting content
16:07:55 one of the big changes is to have more smaller groups to work on the effort.
16:08:12 idea is anything that is feature focused would be done in a smaller group
16:08:31 q+
16:08:47 to avoid chaos, there will be a master plan/map, but the idea is to allow smaller groups to work
16:08:59 another key point will be how to deal with bugs
16:09:33 propose to deliver bugs to WHAT WG, and have an escalation path through the html wg
16:09:54 for groups who are unhappy with this, then will address more directly
16:09:58 Q+
16:10:03 q- later
16:10:09 one thing to avoid is to avoid bug dupes
16:10:29 As far as new features - goal is to have a smaller spec, not a larger one
16:10:40 SteveF has joined #html-a11y
16:11:12 may look to split-off the spec - for example if someone is working a a feature, it may be extracted and worked on as an extension spec
16:11:13 q+
16:11:21 q- later
16:11:29 q+
16:11:35 ack jf
16:11:40 scribe: chaals
16:11:58 JF: You talked about possibility of bugs traveling in parallel paths. How do you manage that?
16:12:44 RB: Idea is not to have them in parallel. If it is something WHATWG will handle, send it there, if you don't want to do that, don't like the resolution or it is on something like longdesc that isn't in WHATWG, then we'll move it to HTML (or file it there to start)
16:13:11 … instead of having two groups trying to figure out what each other were doing, and wasting a lot of time on redundant work.
16:13:27 … and confusing people…
16:13:33 q+
16:13:39 scribe: JF
16:13:49 q+
16:13:58 ack ste
16:15:05 SF: to provide a practicle example, points to performance requirements for ARIA, and yet they have created a new version which will be used [inaudible], at the same time the requiremens which are all in the HTML API mapping section
16:15:22 that current section in the ARIA section will include the few bits around roles, etc.
16:15:34 but the API mapping requirements will be ported off
16:15:43 RB: progress on that now
16:15:46 ack me
16:16:18 CM: there has been some time shopping this around - the HTML group has been quite open to feedback
16:16:20 html api mappings 1.0 http://rawgit.com/w3c/aria/master/html-aam/html-aam.html
16:16:24 this seems to be a good balance
16:16:55 one question: for groups such as this, what do we anticipate what we need to track and monitor?
16:17:02 conformance requirements for ARIA in HTML https://specs.webplatform.org/html-aria/webspecs/master/
16:17:05 RB: yes, we have already seen that kind of feedback
16:17:22 the goal is to produce a map of what is being worked on where
16:17:41 which would be part of the beginning of the spec
16:17:52 ack me
16:18:01 want to also ask groups to outline how they want to work, and how to provide feedback
16:18:19 RB: also talking about how to properly document extension specs
16:18:27 including how to do some self-monitoring
16:18:42 which would aid prior to a horizontal review
16:18:59 this is the plan, and there will be hickups, but this is the general idea
16:19:06 ack ju
16:19:30 JB: appreciate this discussion and that W3C Team addressing some earlier concerns
16:19:46 also welcome the division between Task Forces and Community Groups
16:20:14 important to have some coordinated oversight to address efforts across multiple channels
16:20:29 there is a scalability concern with a proliferation of CGs
16:20:56 steps to work and ensure that CGs can ensure a11y
16:21:49 final point: concern around documents coming from CGs labeled "final", with the assumption that specs are fully baked (but not had a11y review, for example)
16:22:24 RB: we are aware of this, and it is being tracked. People should not move towards "final" prior to multi-group review
16:22:33 q?
16:22:36 JB: yes, there are may options, but appreciate serious review
16:22:39 ack ja
16:23:30 s/"final"/"final specification" rather than "final report"/
16:24:15 JS: want to focus on bug process. Appreciate attempt to make it more responsive, but note that re: a11y - starting at WHAT WG opens possibility of concern
16:24:34 WHAT WG does not have the same depth of a11y participation
16:24:52 q+ to respond on bug process
16:25:05 would be far more comfortable if other groups also started bugs at W3C - concern over history of annimosity with WHAT WG
16:25:14 +1 to Janina
16:25:41 RB: agree with that sentiment. do not want to create a situation where people avoid filing bugs for fear of fallout
16:25:52 agree that a11y area may bve one of those areas
16:26:28 in terms of general policy - it would be not that we are making an exception for a11y, but to extend that to any group who may have similar concerns
16:26:49 there are other groups with similar concerns based on history
16:27:06 -darobin
16:27:07 cak me
16:27:12 RB: hoping to see further feedback (on list)]
16:27:12 ack me
16:27:12 chaals, you wanted to respond on bug process
16:27:32 CM: part of the issue about building trust - you need to step forward
16:27:49 there are many people who file bugs in many places
16:28:18 q+
16:28:38 CM: we run the risk of over-processizing this
16:28:49 file the bug where it best makes sense
16:28:54 q+
16:29:02 ack jan
16:29:02 +1 to Chaals.
16:29:08 s/cak me//
16:29:13 Q+ to ask about tracking bugs in a space we are less effective
16:29:26 +1 to chaals
16:29:37 agenda?
16:29:38 JS: don't want to run the world, but we want to avoid repeating previous actions
16:29:48 q+ to mention some discussion w/ Jeff
16:30:21 ack ju
16:30:21 Judy, you wanted to mention some discussion w/ Jeff
16:30:36 JB: have a few thoughts on the bug-tracking issue
16:30:58 html wg is refreshing their work, so it may be interesting to see how this evolves
16:31:18 have been discussing this with Jeff as well as to how this would work/look
16:31:30 html wg is responsible to ensure that bug tracking is working
16:31:43 it may be difficult to track a by-pass route
16:31:59 q+ to point out filing direct with HTML is not an escalation or bypass, it is one of the two possible initial options for filing a bug.
16:32:11 one possibility would be to establish a success criteria on how bugs are being processed
16:32:38 JB: but hear significant concerns around bug tracking
16:32:44 ack JF
16:32:44 JF, you wanted to ask about tracking bugs in a space we are less effective
16:32:52 scribe: chaals
16:33:22 JF: To echo some of what Judy said, I am concerned there is an appearance of two places to file bugs.
16:33:54 … true we cannot control the world, but unless there is a process that says any accessibility bug filed at WHAT-WG comes to the attention of this task force, we will need to monitor those bugs or things will slip through.
16:34:09 … we shouldn't be relying on people trying to figure out where to file bugs.
16:34:09 q+
16:34:12 ack me
16:34:12 chaals, you wanted to point out filing direct with HTML is not an escalation or bypass, it is one of the two possible initial options for filing a bug.
16:34:57 CM: 2 comments: 1 there are 2 places to file bugs today - there are 2 groups working on HTML, Doing a lot of duplicate work is expensive. There is a general concern over bug tracking
16:35:35 the current/old way was to triage html wg bugs, be same for new bugs on whatwg no?
16:35:45 CM: any bug fix proposed by WHAT WG will be reviewed by the HTML WG
16:35:49 ack liam
16:36:02 s/reviewed by/passing through/
16:36:08 LQ: do not expect saying that there are 2 places to file bugs
16:36:21 there should be a single site to file bugs, and a single site to track bugs
16:36:26 +1 to liam
16:36:33 ack leonie
16:36:36 ack lj
16:36:41 w3c owns w3c bugzilla, that is where the bugs are filed
16:36:45 LW: believe bug tracking *is* in one place
16:36:50 W3C bugzilla
16:36:50 +1 to Liam, that proposal would then put the onus on who the bug is assigned to
16:36:52 [then it's not a problem :-) ]
16:36:56 ack me
16:37:13 CM: encourage people to read the plan, and note that it changes. May want to invite Robiun back
16:37:21 the other part of this is the work plan
16:37:44 we are looking to issue a CfC to decide whqt this group will work on - roughly a charter of what we will be doing here
16:37:54 the wish-list wiki is where we are documenting this
16:38:01 q+
16:38:22 there is a specific issue aropund the work on ARIA - this group is not being actively worked on here.
16:38:24 ack jan
16:38:50 we can either ask to move that here, or we can leave it to operate outside of this TF
16:39:29 JS: work is happening on the API mapping by Steve and Jason - it is bigger than just ARIA
16:40:09 CM: asking steve if work is happening, andif so, where?
16:40:46 SF: there is activity - Jason and I have done some work. When there is something to post, I post it to this WG (as well as PF)
16:41:16 SF: do not need to be in the TF to work on the doc. If you have contributions you can file a bug or send an email
16:42:48 CM: part of the W3C process is to ensure that a11y work is being tracked. If PF is tracking efforts already, then does this group need to track the same work?
16:43:25 SF: suggest that the expertese is in the HTML WG and the PF WG
16:44:15 JS: would agree. Concern that PF being asked to track issues that are not a11y related - happier to see that continue being worked on in this TF
16:44:30 q+
16:44:31 PF decided to move all issues related to HTML to this TF
16:44:37 ack me
16:45:07 SF: people can contribute and provide feedback - if we can facilitate that we are ahead
16:45:16 q+
16:45:39 CM: comment and suggestion: as a browser vendor and content creator - minimizing the number of things and places to track is a good thing
16:45:58 propose we place the documents up as proposed work items, and see what feedback we get
16:45:58 ack ju
16:46:25 agenda?
16:46:55 [Judy does not see harm in maintaining a lightweight tracking list, but doesn't want to debate it further]
16:47:00 -[IPcaller]
16:47:01 CM: this group is formally tasked with tracking all of the a11y issues for HTML
16:47:20 Present+ SteveF
16:47:29 zakim, take up item 4
16:47:29 agendum 4. "Canvas specification" taken up [from chaals]
16:47:30 zakim, take up item 4
16:47:31 agendum 4. "Canvas specification" taken up [from chaals]
16:47:52 q+
16:48:22 JS: there has been some activity this week (drawFocus) - advances at Google. Dominic was asking some questions around specific code, under code-review at G now.
16:48:39 No news on the single Firefox bug; Joanie is also looking at support in WebKit
16:48:52 JS: for one week now we've been making excellent progress
16:48:54 ack me
16:48:57 CM: good news!
16:49:26 CM: is that Chrome code or Chromium code? if Chromium then it is also picked up by Yandex and Opera
16:49:36 JS: Good question - will need to verify
16:49:49 CM: what is the status of hitRegion?
16:50:08 q+
16:50:10 JS: will need substantially more work. If we want to mve forward suggest to not wait on hitRegion
16:50:21 suggestion to move that to "level 2"
16:50:31 ack ju
16:50:45 Chairs agreed getting that would justify a level 2
16:51:11 JB: there is still some discussion around this - other suggestion would be to have a 1.1
16:52:04 sugest that the plan be flexible. It is aproblem with going out without hit Region, but... starting to see some complaints on inaccessible Canvas
16:52:17 zakim, take up item 3
16:52:17 agendum 3. "Longdesc decision?" taken up [from chaals]
16:52:54 JB: there are some things complicating the decision process. Have re-escalated this internally. Process suggests that news be announced in 2-3 weeks
16:53:04 there are some concerns that this hasn't happened
16:53:17 it is going to the AC (should be out by tomorrow)
16:53:37 zakim, take up item 2
16:53:37 agendum 2. "action item review - https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/open" taken up [from chaals]
16:54:29 LQ: status is - have done more editting and by next weeks meeting we can review the changes
16:54:46 JB: has there been a chance to review the changes
16:55:00 LQ: I am making changes - this TF will need to review
16:55:13 Shane and I will list changes we have done - will report back next week
16:55:32 JS: question was - is there content in this document that is not in the HTML spec?
16:56:00 LQ: do not believe so, but have a verbal confirmation from Steve. F - so believe to be true, but have not had a line-by-line review
16:56:01 close action-296
16:56:01 Closed action-296.
16:56:03 q+
16:56:20 JS: which is the concern over the changes that you and Shane have been making - perhaps they should be filed as bugs
16:56:27 s/in 2-3 weeks/in 2 weeks or else update provided in 3 weeks http://www.w3.org/2014/Process-20140801/#ACReviewAfter
16:56:36 ack me
16:56:47 LQ: exactly, not clear of the value of editing a document that may not be published. it requires major editing
16:57:19 CM: if there is a need to change some of the existing wording and the spec, then having a seperate doc has value
16:57:44 is there significant differances? Do we need to change the HTML docu?
16:57:47 LQ: yes
16:58:10 mostly english language grammar errors - there are also substantive technical errors
16:58:36 CM: will put this into the "suggested doucments to be a deliverable" and see what happens
16:58:57 the work item of fixing the errors in the current guidance is the core, but how we do that remains to see
16:59:36 CM: 2 other action on me. Have posted an email about keyboard access.
17:00:11