14:44:08 RRSAgent has joined #html-a11y
14:44:08 logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/03/12-html-a11y-irc
14:44:10 RRSAgent, make logs world
14:44:10 Zakim has joined #html-a11y
14:44:12 Zakim, this will be 2119
14:44:12 ok, trackbot; I see WAI_PFWG(HTML TF)10:00AM scheduled to start 44 minutes ago
14:44:13 Meeting: HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference
14:44:13 Date: 12 March 2015
14:45:01 WAI_PFWG(HTML TF)10:00AM has now started
14:45:08 +??P0
14:45:17 zakim, ??P0 is me
14:45:17 +janina; got it
14:45:23 agenda?
14:45:27 agenda+ Agenda review and edits
14:45:27 agenda+ CSUN news?
14:45:27 agenda+ Work Plan CfC - results http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2015Mar/0012.html
14:45:30 agenda+ Proposed Concurrent CfC Procedure http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2015Mar/0015.html
14:45:33 agenda+ Potential Other Consensus Procedure Changes
14:45:36 agenda+ "ARIA in HTML" Issues from PF
14:45:38 agenda+ Face to face meeting CfC - results
14:45:41 agenda+ Keyboard access - https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Keyboard
14:45:50 zakim, who's here?
14:45:50 On the phone I see janina
14:45:52 On IRC I see RRSAgent, newtron, ShaneM, IanPouncey, LJWatson, Joshue, janina, liam, joanie, sivoais, cabanier, trackbot
14:46:26 zakim, agenda?
14:46:26 I see 8 items remaining on the agenda:
14:46:27 1. Agenda review and edits [from janina]
14:46:27 2. CSUN news? [from janina]
14:46:27 3. Work Plan CfC - results http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2015Mar/0012.html [from janina]
14:46:27 4. Proposed Concurrent CfC Procedure http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2015Mar/0015.html [from janina]
14:46:27 5. Potential Other Consensus Procedure Changes [from janina]
14:46:27 6. "ARIA in HTML" Issues from PF [from janina]
14:46:28 7. Face to face meeting CfC - results [from janina]
14:46:28 8. Keyboard access - https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Keyboard [from janina]
14:47:09 chair: janina
14:48:45 Hi, Leonie, yes, for today
14:49:13 It's essentially what Chaals posted, somewhat re-arranged
14:51:12 Sure. Mostly different order.
14:51:49 Additional item is "Potential Other Consensus Process Changes"
14:52:08 PF has been discussing whether we can move closer to HTML'as auto publish heartbeats
14:52:50 I wanted to explore that a bit further. This comes up from the CfC on "ARIA in HTML" which everyone seems to agree is FPWD ready, but which PF wants to copublish
14:58:26 Thanks, Shane
15:00:04 +Judy
15:00:09 +[IPcaller]
15:01:13 +Joanmarie_Diggs
15:02:01 zakim, [IPcaller] is me
15:02:01 +LJWatson; got it
15:02:38 +Liam
15:02:44 -Judy
15:02:57 +Judy
15:03:04 plh has joined #html-a11y
15:03:18 SteveF has joined #html-a11y
15:03:28 +ShaneM
15:03:45 +Plh
15:03:53 +[IPcaller]
15:03:59 Zakim, IPcaller is me
15:03:59 +IanPouncey; got it
15:04:34 darobin has joined #html-a11y
15:04:47 Scribe: ShaneM
15:04:51 zakim, next item
15:04:52 agendum 1. "Agenda review and edits" taken up [from janina]
15:04:55 +JF
15:05:00 +[IPcaller]
15:05:07 agenda?
15:05:42 zakim, who is on the call?
15:05:43 On the phone I see janina, LJWatson, Joanmarie_Diggs, Liam, Judy, ShaneM, Plh, IanPouncey, JF, [IPcaller]
15:06:13 zakim, [IPcaller] is me
15:06:13 +SteveF; got it
15:06:23 janina: Agenda is largely as Chaals proposed. A couple of corrections.
15:06:24 zakim, close this item
15:06:24 agendum 1 closed
15:06:25 I see 7 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
15:06:25 2. CSUN news? [from janina]
15:06:29 zakim, next item
15:06:29 agendum 2. "CSUN news?" taken up [from janina]
15:06:41 + +1.617.319.aaaa
15:07:13 Apparently nothing special to report.
15:07:21 zakim, close this item
15:07:21 agendum 2 closed
15:07:22 I see 6 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
15:07:22 3. Work Plan CfC - results http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2015Mar/0012.html [from janina]
15:07:26 richardschwerdtfeger has joined #html-a11y
15:07:26 zakim, next item
15:07:26 agendum 3. "Work Plan CfC - results http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2015Mar/0012.html" taken up [from janina]
15:07:35 +[IPcaller]
15:07:37 Zakim. [ is me
15:07:40 Zakim, [ is me
15:07:40 +darobin; got it
15:09:04 janina: done with the list of deliverables and work statement edits.
15:09:34 MarkS has joined #html-a11y
15:09:38 ... we need to pull the deliverables from the work statement so that they are easily referenceable. Liam can you do that?
15:09:53 zakim, agenda?
15:09:53 I see 6 items remaining on the agenda:
15:09:54 3. Work Plan CfC - results http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2015Mar/0012.html [from janina]
15:09:54 4. Proposed Concurrent CfC Procedure http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2015Mar/0015.html [from janina]
15:09:54 5. Potential Other Consensus Procedure Changes [from janina]
15:09:54 6. "ARIA in HTML" Issues from PF [from janina]
15:09:54 7. Face to face meeting CfC - results [from janina]
15:09:56 liam: we now have one list but it is not in a separate place. cn do it.
15:09:58 8. Keyboard access - https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Keyboard [from janina]
15:10:03 s/cn/can/
15:10:26 janina: we should let the co-chairs know that all interested groups to use the central list.
15:10:31 zakim, next item
15:10:31 agendum 4. "Proposed Concurrent CfC Procedure http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2015Mar/0015.html" taken up [from janina]
15:12:06 janina: the language is designed so that we *can* do a concurrent CfC, but sometimes it may still be useful to do separate ones just to assess buy-in.
15:12:27 Q+ to note that for heartbeta publications in HTML there is no CFC needed
15:12:47 ... the groups seem to hold off on starting a CfC until things are pretty settled.
15:13:09 ... Note that the current process means it will take at least two weeks.
15:13:10 +1 to the proposed change.
15:13:12 ack ste
15:13:12 SteveF, you wanted to note that for heartbeta publications in HTML there is no CFC needed
15:13:29 SteveF: Heartbeat publications in HTML don't need a CfC any longer.
15:13:35 janina: yes - we will discuss that next.
15:13:46 +1
15:13:58 +1
15:14:02 janina: It seems like there is agreement. We will need to do a CfC to adopt this change.
15:14:05 +1
15:14:07 +1
15:14:08 zakim, next item
15:14:08 agendum 5. "Potential Other Consensus Procedure Changes" taken up [from janina]
15:15:48 janina: FPWD requires consensus. Moving to CR requires consensus. Heartbeat publications do not require it in the html working group.
15:16:03 ... the PFWG has not adopted this change yet.
15:16:27 ... current process requires a week minimum.
15:16:35 q+ to mention Echidna/automated publication
15:17:26 ... Proposal that a heartbeat would be announced in advance so that people would have a chance to chime in. Not quite the same as HTML.
15:17:31 ack darobin
15:17:31 darobin, you wanted to mention Echidna/automated publication
15:17:36 Judy has joined #html-a11y
15:17:49 +Cynthia_Shelly
15:18:10 darobin: W3C now has an automated publishing system. Groups that opt in can get things automatically published as a heartbeat.
15:18:42 ... document users have complained that there is confusion between editors drafts and published heartbeats.
15:18:48 q+
15:18:59 -Judy
15:19:11 ... would be nice to eliminate editors drafts altogether, instead having frequent automatic heartbeats.
15:19:13 +Rich_Schwerdtfeger
15:19:23 +Judy
15:19:25 q+ to ask about process rules for Echidna
15:19:44 janina: we have discussed this in PF
15:20:21 ... because of the PF horizontal review stuff frequent heartbeats are going to make it challenging to track documents as they evolve.
15:20:33 q+ to point out that Echidna still has dated specs
15:20:35 ... PF knows to look at FPWD, but we don't know when we need to apply time later in the process.
15:20:43 q+
15:21:06 q?
15:21:11 ack st
15:21:11 ack SteveF
15:21:43 JF has joined #html-a11y
15:22:03 SteveF: There are problems with PF documents. ARIA authoring practices, for example, there are many URLs. Some are a couple of years old.
15:22:13 ... when I am referencing things I want the most recent version.
15:22:46 ... we need to ensure that content is not stale.
15:23:20 janina: we need to have URIs be reliability and stability.
15:23:31 q+
15:23:38 q- SteveF
15:23:46 ack ju
15:24:01 Judy: Note that PF name change will not effect document URIs.
15:24:05 ack ShaneM
15:24:05 ShaneM, you wanted to ask about process rules for Echidna
15:24:07 ack sh
15:24:42 ShaneM: do we need to adopt the new process rules to use Echidna?
15:24:59 darobin: Yes. HTML WG has adopted it for the HTML spec already.
15:25:10 ack dar
15:25:10 darobin, you wanted to point out that Echidna still has dated specs
15:25:29 q?
15:25:56 darobin: Echidna still generates dated versions of specs. It is possible to get to a stable point and issue a call for wide review against a dated version.
15:26:24 ... this would be a point where horizontal review would take place.
15:26:53 ack l
15:26:56 janina: the issue is how do we know when changes are substantive or editorial. The length of the diff is one way.
15:27:32 q?
15:27:58 LJWatson: The benefit of frequent heartbeats is clear to the consumers. It should be fairly obvious when horizontal reviews are necessary.
15:28:35 zakim, next item
15:28:35 agendum 6. ""ARIA in HTML" Issues from PF" taken up [from janina]
15:29:42 s/It should be fairly obvious when horizontal reviews are necessary./Heartbeats are just small steps on the way to the milestones we use for reviews anyway./
15:29:51 SteveF: document is essentially a set of requirements for conformance checker implementors and authors as to when and how to use aria attributes
15:30:08 ... same requirements that were in the HTML specification in the WAI-ARIA section.
15:30:19 q+ to point out that this has already been removed from HTML
15:30:26 ... as part of M12N, was asked to split off this content into a separate document.
15:31:37 ... HTML 5 implementation requirements on browsers will be in the ARIA mapping specification (HTML-AAM)
15:32:24 q?
15:32:45 janina: no disagreement that this was already in HTML 5
15:33:08 ... and that it is probably ready for FPWD.
15:33:51 ... PF would like to be a co-publisher of these two documents because they are a significant amount of work on the part of the PFWG.
15:34:18 ... there has been contention in the past, and PF if concerned that we remain in the loop so that there isn't contention in the future.
15:35:10 ... moreover need to speak with one voice. If we go to the point of putting this document into the horizintal review process it would change the charater of the relationship between PFWG and HTMLWG.
15:35:36 ... that didn't work very well. We created this task force to help ensure things work better, and they now do.
15:35:37 q+
15:36:02 q?
15:36:03 q+
15:36:05 ... Particularly as things relate to ARIA, we want to help ensure work remains smooth.
15:36:10 ack darobin
15:36:10 darobin, you wanted to point out that this has already been removed from HTML
15:36:14 ack d
15:36:21 Q+
15:37:00 darobin: HTML has a vested interest in getting this published quickly. M12N needs close coordination. It would be easy for documents to go out of sync.
15:37:32 ... we would end up being forced to reference the editors draft instead of a published draft if the document(s) are not published with similar frequencies.
15:37:43 q+
15:37:57 ... I appreciate that things were problematic several years ago, but we are no longer there. There is a much friendlier relationship.
15:38:07 +1 to healthy working relationship
15:38:07 ... we should not be constrained by things that happened years ago.
15:38:11 ack l
15:38:15 janina: the fix is this task force.
15:38:22 +1 to healthy relationship
15:38:30 q?
15:38:56 ack st
15:39:03 q+
15:39:20 LJWatson: we have indeed moved a long way. the publication of ARIA in HTML by the HTMLWG sort of underlines the success of this task force.
15:39:35 SteveF: What are the issues from the PF?
15:40:03 janina: no disagreement that people want it published. The question is what is the long term status of this document.
15:40:07 ack jf
15:40:24 ... there is a consensus developing in the PF that we would like to be co-publishers.
15:41:07 can we have a link to the PF minutes?
15:41:27 q+ to point out that PF can be copublishers with the document still in Echidna (at least when Echidna gets fixed to support that)
15:42:00 JF: We are moving toward M12N. Robin said that "this has already been removed from HTML". I am confused about what it means when something is part of HTML or not. I thought extension specifications were supposed to be "part of HTML".
15:42:46 darobin: It has been removed from the giant specification. That large document is too hard to review, to maintain, etc.
15:43:17 ... it has been moved to a separate document. It has not been removed from the HTML language.
15:43:18 ack r
15:44:15 richardschwerdtfeger: A concern is that someone could create a new role, for example. We worry about taxonomy impacts. That's the sort of thing that the PFWG is concerned about with the ARIA in HTML document. It is about tight coordination.
15:44:28 janina: and we need to keep synchronized with the other ARIA documents too.
15:44:34 note to rich, aria in html doc does not define any roles, states or properties
15:44:54 and if it did we'd hit SteveF
15:44:59 ack ju
15:45:02 richardschwerdtfeger: Google has also asked us to create some way to do things for web components with regard to ARIA.
15:46:05 +1 to clarity in talking points
15:46:14 Judy: M12N is about evolving the HTML specification. SteveF is working on ARIA stuff as a module because it is his particular interest.
15:46:35 ... and yes, W3C needs to get its talking points in order. We are NOT removing things from HTML the language.
15:47:32 Judy: HTML and ARIA are both evolving. SVG is going to be evolving. Unless we are closely coordinating we are going to have a mess later on.
15:48:01 q+
15:48:04 ... there are valid concerns about timing and synchronization. We should be able to work that out on a coordination level.
15:48:05 ack c
15:48:25 q+
15:48:29 CynS: The concern is more about being part of the product design team, as opposed to a reviewer after the fact.
15:48:41 ack d
15:48:41 darobin, you wanted to point out that PF can be copublishers with the document still in Echidna (at least when Echidna gets fixed to support that)
15:48:48 ... we want to work together, not throw things over the wall. Doing it in PF feels like a natural way to handle that.
15:49:13 darobin: There is currently a bug in Echidna that makes it impossible to jointly publish a document right now. But that will get sorted.
15:49:21 ack jan
15:50:26 janina: What I want to suggest is that HTML could view this positively. Tight coordination and synchronization should may be easier as a result of M12N.
15:50:31 q??/
15:50:32 q+
15:50:36 ack l
15:50:44 ... SVG might need to do something similar.
15:50:46 ack j
15:51:29 LJWatson: This information as been in the HTML monolith all along. Why are we concerned now that it is separate.
15:51:29 Q+ to agree with the optics taht Leonie is talking about
15:51:41 q?
15:51:42 ... it doesn't take any more reviewing or coordination.
15:51:46 ack jf
15:51:46 JF, you wanted to agree with the optics taht Leonie is talking about
15:51:53 janina: because the subject area continues to evolve.
15:51:58 q+
15:52:12 q+ to note that the expectation is that this would actually make things easier to review and sync, compared to the monolith
15:52:23 q+
15:52:36 JF: Yes this has been taken out of the big document. I think that is concerning.
15:52:40 q+ to also mention that we are looking at taking the *elements* out of HTML
15:52:43 ack plh
15:52:46