IRC log of ua on 2009-04-02

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:57:34 [RRSAgent]: RRSAgent has joined #ua
16:57:34 [RRSAgent]: logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/04/02-ua-irc
16:57:36 [trackbot]: RRSAgent, make logs public
16:57:36 [Zakim]: Zakim has joined #ua
16:57:38 [trackbot]: Zakim, this will be WAI_UAWG
16:57:38 [Zakim]: ok, trackbot; I see WAI_UAWG()1:00PM scheduled to start in 3 minutes
16:57:39 [trackbot]: Meeting: User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference
16:57:39 [trackbot]: Date: 02 April 2009
16:58:14 [KFord]: Chair: Jim Allan
16:58:25 [mhakkinen]: mhakkinen has joined #ua
16:58:33 [KFord]: Chair: Jim_Allan
17:00:07 [KFord]: Agenda+ Logistics (Regrets, agenda requests, comments)?
17:00:07 [KFord]: Agenda+ Consensus on alt http://esw.w3.org/topic/PF/XTech/HTML5/TextAlternativeProposal
17:00:07 [KFord]: Agenda+ Survey Results http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20090223/
17:00:07 [KFord]: Agenda+ WAI-ARIA last call review http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria/
17:00:07 [KFord]: Agenda+ overflow http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2009JanMar/0087.html
17:00:08 [KFord]: Agenda+ MaxLength and screen readers
17:01:01 [KFord]: zakim, save agenda
17:01:07 [Zakim]: ok, KFord, the agenda has been written to http://www.w3.org/2009/04/02-ua-agenda.rdf
17:01:09 [Zakim]: WAI_UAWG()1:00PM has now started
17:01:10 [Zakim]: +??P5
17:01:16 [sharper]: zakim, ??P5 is sharper
17:01:16 [Zakim]: +sharper; got it
17:01:24 [Zakim]: +[Microsoft]
17:01:39 [KFord]: zakim, microsoft is kford
17:01:39 [Zakim]: +kford; got it
17:02:52 [JR]: JR has joined #ua
17:02:54 [sharper]: present+ Harper_Simon
17:03:00 [JR]: zakim, code?
17:03:00 [Zakim]: the conference code is 82941 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), JR
17:03:41 [KFord]: rrsagent, amke logs public
17:03:41 [RRSAgent]: I'm logging. I don't understand 'amke logs public', KFord. Try /msg RRSAgent help
17:03:50 [KFord]: rrsagent, make logs public
17:04:21 [KFord]: rrsagent, make minutes
17:04:21 [RRSAgent]: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/04/02-ua-minutes.html KFord
17:05:04 [Zakim]: +Mark_Hakkinen
17:05:19 [Zakim]: +??P10
17:05:30 [JR]: zakim, ??P10 is really JR
17:05:30 [Zakim]: +JR; got it
17:06:13 [AllanJ]: AllanJ has joined #ua
17:06:36 [KFord]: Correcting survey link., http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20090331/
17:06:53 [Zakim]: +allanj
17:07:48 [AllanJ]: scribe: allanj
17:07:50 [Zakim]: +??P14
17:08:07 [AllanJ]: zakim, agenda
17:08:07 [Zakim]: I don't understand 'agenda', AllanJ
17:08:16 [sharper]: zakim, ??P14 is Henny
17:08:16 [Zakim]: +Henny; got it
17:08:29 [KFord]: zakim list agenda
17:08:49 [AllanJ]: zakim, agenda ?
17:08:49 [Zakim]: I see 6 items remaining on the agenda:
17:08:50 [Zakim]: 1. Logistics (Regrets, agenda requests, comments)? [from KFord]
17:08:52 [Zakim]: 2. Consensus on alt http://esw.w3.org/topic/PF/XTech/HTML5/TextAlternativeProposal [from KFord]
17:08:55 [Zakim]: 3. Survey Results http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20090223/ [from KFord]
17:08:57 [Zakim]: 4. WAI-ARIA last call review http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria/ [from KFord]
17:08:58 [Zakim]: 5. overflow http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2009JanMar/0087.html [from KFord]
17:09:01 [Zakim]: 6. MaxLength and screen readers [from KFord]
17:09:20 [AllanJ]: regrets: jeanne
17:09:40 [Zakim]: -Henny
17:09:46 [AllanJ]: zakim, close item 1
17:09:46 [Zakim]: agendum 1, Logistics (Regrets, agenda requests, comments)?, closed
17:09:47 [Zakim]: I see 5 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
17:09:48 [Zakim]: 2. Consensus on alt http://esw.w3.org/topic/PF/XTech/HTML5/TextAlternativeProposal [from KFord]
17:10:14 [AllanJ]: zakim, open next item
17:10:14 [Zakim]: agendum 2. "Consensus on alt http://esw.w3.org/topic/PF/XTech/HTML5/TextAlternativeProposal" taken up [from KFord]
17:10:16 [Zakim]: + +0203091aaaa
17:11:31 [JR]: Proposal:
17:11:39 [AllanJ]: 1. IMG is only valid when @alt is present (empty or non-empty)
17:11:41 [AllanJ]: 2. For cases in which it is appropriate for user agents to ignore the presence of the image (e.g., when they are used for decoration, formatting, or are invisible):
17:11:42 [AllanJ]: * alt="" MUST be present
17:11:44 [AllanJ]: * @role="presentation" SHOULD be present
17:11:46 [AllanJ]: 3. alt="" WITHOUT an accompanying role="presentation" triggers a non-critical validator warning recommending use of role="presentation" (but @alt="" remains technically valid)
17:12:55 [AllanJ]: KF: choices for response.
17:13:30 [AllanJ]: JR: sent responses, but not on survey results
17:13:35 [AllanJ]: MH: same
17:13:43 [AllanJ]: KF: same
17:14:09 [JR]: JR: I appreciate the simplicity and backwards compatibility of this proposal. My only concern is about the affect it will have on adoption of ARIA-labelledby.
17:14:57 [AllanJ]: JR: if we always require @alt why would you use @labeledby
17:15:06 [AllanJ]: ...what is its future
17:15:45 [AllanJ]: KF: do we want to risk backwards compatibiility.
17:16:07 [AllanJ]: JR: compatibility is a commendable goal
17:16:32 [AllanJ]: ...question of simplicity. @alt is one of three options
17:16:50 [AllanJ]: KF: past is use @alt
17:17:25 [AllanJ]: JR: perhaps @labeledby is not needed for images, but necessary for other things
17:18:11 [AllanJ]: ...good thing about @labeledby, can specify (link) description to image
17:18:20 [mhakkinen]: I would still favor recommending an @role value that would unambiguously
17:18:20 [mhakkinen]: indicate that the image is indeed content, and that either alt text is
17:18:20 [mhakkinen]: present, or the AT will use aria, content in the figure markup, or other
17:18:20 [mhakkinen]: techniques to find alt text.
17:18:20 [mhakkinen]: From last week I can understand the rationale for not making role required
17:18:20 [mhakkinen]: ... don't break existing code. But, aren't enough other things changing in
17:18:22 [mhakkinen]: HTML5 to make backward compatibility concerns moot, and aren't there ways
17:18:24 [mhakkinen]: to address this re validators?
17:18:26 [mhakkinen]: The proposed approach continues to allow for ambiguity, without enforcing
17:18:28 [mhakkinen]: any real change.
17:18:30 [mhakkinen]: Further, recommending @role=presentation may become the easy way for an
17:18:33 [mhakkinen]: author to not deal with the problem, removing an image from the initial
17:18:34 [mhakkinen]: view of the UA/AT (a whole other topic).
17:18:37 [mhakkinen]: The present proposal doesn't really fix anything if authors don't follow
17:18:39 [mhakkinen]: these rules, and without requirement, many won't.
17:18:40 [mhakkinen]: One possible approach, using the non-required model:
17:18:43 [mhakkinen]: "Alt="" WITHOUT an accompanying role="image???" or role="presentation" or
17:18:45 [mhakkinen]: described-by triggers a non-critical validator warning recommending use of
17:18:47 [mhakkinen]: use non-blank alt text or aria described-by."
17:19:36 [AllanJ]: MH: still ambiguity. concerned about @role
17:20:34 [AllanJ]: ...explicitly requires @role. what is the intent of the image. using @role removes some ambiguity.
17:21:56 [AllanJ]: SH: neutral. can see both points. want simple. not so concerned about backward compatibility
17:22:22 [sharper]: JA: Like marks idea of requiring the role
17:24:43 [AllanJ]: JR: like original ALT proposal http://esw.w3.org/topic/PF/XTech/HTML5/TextAlternativeProposal
17:25:32 [AllanJ]: ...requiring @role would break all pre-HTML5 pages.
17:26:10 [AllanJ]: ...spacer is an image, so is @role image is confusing
17:27:02 [AllanJ]: MH: right. @role=presentation is not meaningful. suggest- decorative or non-informational
17:27:23 [AllanJ]: KF: send comments
17:27:58 [AllanJ]: ...change definition, with @role, language is too complicated
17:29:33 [AllanJ]: ...technology moves forward. can live with @labeledby. browser of today would get gibberish if I am not using the most upto date browser. because it doesn't recognize @labeledby
17:29:49 [AllanJ]: JR: how long do we wait for AT to catch up.
17:30:59 [AllanJ]: JR: @labeledby goes in the DOM. descriptions should be there.
17:31:53 [AllanJ]: KF: AT do DOM parsing. accessibility architecture provides other information
17:33:11 [AllanJ]: JR: go with aria, and what is the timeline
17:34:11 [AllanJ]: KF: can live with current proposal
17:34:47 [AllanJ]: MH: image with @labeledby, any limit on what it can reference
17:35:19 [AllanJ]: JR: if image was graph, could link to a table.
17:35:54 [AllanJ]: MH: how do we validate that the referenced information has any value.
17:36:10 [AllanJ]: JR: no easier to validate an @alt.
17:36:31 [AllanJ]: MH: right, could be better or worse
17:37:10 [AllanJ]: JR: like the 'in plain view' easier for author to update, @alt is hidden
17:38:04 [AllanJ]: MH: could move it off screen
17:38:23 [AllanJ]: JR: should be able to do that. talking about 'describedby
17:39:56 [AllanJ]: KF: any consensus?
17:40:15 [AllanJ]: JR: CG proposal is too complicated
17:40:25 [AllanJ]: +1 all around
17:44:42 [AllanJ]: JR: some short text is required - @alt or @labeledby
17:47:39 [AllanJ]: does UA just have to process the information
17:48:13 [AllanJ]: JR: more than that, must have the technical and accessibility considerations
17:48:56 [AllanJ]: KF: must have short text. two ways @alt, @labeledby
17:49:31 [AllanJ]: KF: -1 @alt must be required
17:49:35 [JR]: KF: I'm coming down on @alt is the required attribute
17:50:04 [AllanJ]: MH: +1 kelly
17:51:02 [AllanJ]: MH: what about mobile browsers, easier to process @alt, or query DOM to find displayable text
17:51:51 [AllanJ]: ...mobile browser may not support ARIA, then how is information presented
17:53:37 [AllanJ]: JR: chart example. short text - some caption text, describedby - longer description
17:54:20 [AllanJ]: MH: google search look at not just @alt, but also need to look at @labeledby
17:55:29 [AllanJ]: JR: Ok with HTML proposal
17:55:40 [AllanJ]: JA: +1 to JR
17:56:01 [JR]: SH: +1 to kelly
17:57:13 [AllanJ]: KF: response to ALTwg
17:57:21 [AllanJ]: ...too complicated
17:57:33 [AllanJ]: ...point back notes
17:58:06 [KFord]: Action: kford summary UA position on alt for CG.
17:58:06 [trackbot]: Sorry, couldn't find user - kford
17:58:32 [KFord]: Action: kf summaryize UA position on alt for CG.
17:58:32 [trackbot]: Created ACTION-166 - Summaryize UA position on alt for CG. [on Kelly Ford - due 2009-04-09].
17:58:46 [AllanJ]: ...group split on @alt & @labeledby
17:59:08 [AllanJ]: zakim, close item
17:59:08 [Zakim]: I don't understand 'close item', AllanJ
17:59:20 [AllanJ]: zakim, close item 2
17:59:20 [Zakim]: agendum 2, Consensus on alt http://esw.w3.org/topic/PF/XTech/HTML5/TextAlternativeProposal, closed
17:59:22 [Zakim]: I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
17:59:23 [Zakim]: 3. Survey Results http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20090223/ [from KFord]
17:59:36 [AllanJ]: zakim, open item 3
17:59:36 [Zakim]: agendum 3. "Survey Results http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20090223/" taken up [from KFord]
18:00:20 [AllanJ]: --enabled element
18:00:47 [AllanJ]: Resolved: enabled element, disabled element
18:00:48 [AllanJ]: An element with associated behaviors that can be activated through the user interface or through an API. The set of elements that a user agent enables is generally derived from, but is not limited to, the set of interactive elements defined by implemented markup languages. A disabled element is a potentially enabled element, that is not currently available for activation (e.g., a "grayed...
18:00:50 [AllanJ]: ...out" menu item)
18:01:11 [AllanJ]: action: JS update def of enabled element
18:01:11 [trackbot]: Created ACTION-167 - Update def of enabled element [on Jeanne Spellman - due 2009-04-09].
18:03:10 [AllanJ]: action: JS check version of 'equivalent alternative' this should have been dealt with already
18:03:10 [trackbot]: Created ACTION-168 - Check version of 'equivalent alternative' this should have been dealt with already [on Jeanne Spellman - due 2009-04-09].
18:03:17 [AllanJ]: zakim, close item 3
18:03:17 [Zakim]: agendum 3, Survey Results http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20090223/, closed
18:03:19 [Zakim]: I see 3 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
18:03:20 [Zakim]: 4. WAI-ARIA last call review http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria/ [from KFord]
18:03:33 [AllanJ]: zakim, open item 4
18:03:33 [Zakim]: agendum 4. "WAI-ARIA last call review http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria/" taken up [from KFord]
18:04:18 [AllanJ]: deadline 17 April
18:05:39 [AllanJ]: JA, MH, KF to draft a proposal by 16 April
18:06:08 [Henny]: Henny has joined #ua
18:06:13 [AllanJ]: zakim, close item 4
18:06:13 [Zakim]: agendum 4, WAI-ARIA last call review http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria/, closed
18:06:15 [Zakim]: I see 2 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
18:06:16 [Zakim]: 5. overflow http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2009JanMar/0087.html [from KFord]
18:06:29 [AllanJ]: zakim, open item 5
18:06:29 [Zakim]: agendum 5. "overflow http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2009JanMar/0087.html" taken up [from KFord]
18:06:42 [KFord]: Scribe: kford
18:07:33 [KFord]: This has to do with CSS where an author sets a div with an overflow descriptor. You can get scroll bars but it doesn't get keyboard focus.
18:08:02 [KFord]: JA: I thought we had this covered under keyboard operation.
18:08:34 [KFord]: JA: What does the group think? Is this covered, do we need a technique or what?
18:08:55 [KFord]: JA: In short is this covered under 4.1?
18:10:11 [KFord]: JA: This doesn't normally get keyboard focus.
18:10:35 [KFord]: JA: This is kind of like the tooltip situation.
18:11:14 [KFord]: KF: My impression is that this is an example of many cases we could come up with.
18:12:11 [KFord]: JR: I think we also want to throw this under focus as well. Success criteria cover this. Need to cover keyboard action for scrollable areas.
18:12:56 [KFord]: JA: Might this fall under enabled element but is this stretching it?
18:13:53 [KFord]: Action: JA ensure success criteria cover this keyboard scrollable area.
18:13:54 [trackbot]: Created ACTION-169 - Ensure success criteria cover this keyboard scrollable area. [on Jim Allan - due 2009-04-09].
18:14:21 [KFord]: JR: Jim, check 3.11 where we have some of this already.
18:15:01 [KFord]: JA: Could this be another little viewport?
18:15:14 [KFord]: JR: Exactly.
18:15:49 [AllanJ]: zakim, close item 5
18:15:49 [Zakim]: agendum 5, overflow http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2009JanMar/0087.html, closed
18:15:51 [Zakim]: I see 1 item remaining on the agenda:
18:15:52 [Zakim]: 6. MaxLength and screen readers [from KFord]
18:16:06 [AllanJ]: zakim, open item 6
18:16:06 [Zakim]: agendum 6. "MaxLength and screen readers" taken up [from KFord]
18:17:08 [KFord]: KFord has joined #ua
18:18:38 [KFord]: KFord has joined #ua
18:19:41 [AllanJ]: automatically reject input
18:20:05 [AllanJ]: KF: UA should ding or something, some indication of invalid input
18:20:58 [AllanJ]: MH: also scripting issues where max length is reached it jumps to next field
18:21:58 [AllanJ]: action: JA to craft success criteria for 'invalid input'
18:21:58 [trackbot]: Created ACTION-170 - Craft success criteria for 'invalid input' [on Jim Allan - due 2009-04-09].
18:23:43 [AllanJ]: any general case beyond max length
18:24:17 [AllanJ]: MH: anything in HTML5 about content types
18:24:34 [AllanJ]: JA: what about 'required'
18:24:54 [AllanJ]: zakim, close item 6
18:24:54 [Zakim]: agendum 6, MaxLength and screen readers, closed
18:24:55 [Zakim]: I see nothing remaining on the agenda
18:25:53 [AllanJ]: MH: input types, date, time, range, uri, password, required
18:27:44 [Zakim]: -Mark_Hakkinen
18:27:46 [Zakim]: -JR
18:27:46 [Zakim]: - +0203091aaaa
18:27:47 [Zakim]: -sharper
18:30:23 [Zakim]: -kford
18:30:28 [Zakim]: -allanj
18:30:29 [Zakim]: WAI_UAWG()1:00PM has ended
18:30:30 [Zakim]: Attendees were sharper, kford, Mark_Hakkinen, JR, allanj, Henny, +0203091aaaa
18:30:48 [AllanJ]: rrsagent, set logs public
18:31:03 [AllanJ]: rrsagent, make minutes
18:31:03 [RRSAgent]: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/04/02-ua-minutes.html AllanJ
18:45:45 [AllanJ]: zakim, bye
18:45:45 [Zakim]: Zakim has left #ua
18:45:50 [AllanJ]: rrsagent, bye
18:45:50 [RRSAgent]: I see 6 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2009/04/02-ua-actions.rdf :
18:45:50 [RRSAgent]: ACTION: kford summary UA position on alt for CG. [1]
18:45:50 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/04/02-ua-irc#T17-58-06
18:45:50 [RRSAgent]: ACTION: kf summaryize UA position on alt for CG. [2]
18:45:50 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/04/02-ua-irc#T17-58-32
18:45:50 [RRSAgent]: ACTION: JS update def of enabled element [3]
18:45:50 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/04/02-ua-irc#T18-01-11
18:45:50 [RRSAgent]: ACTION: JS check version of 'equivalent alternative' this should have been dealt with already [4]
18:45:50 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/04/02-ua-irc#T18-03-10
18:45:50 [RRSAgent]: ACTION: JA ensure success criteria cover this keyboard scrollable area. [5]
18:45:50 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/04/02-ua-irc#T18-13-53
18:45:50 [RRSAgent]: ACTION: JA to craft success criteria for 'invalid input' [6]
18:45:50 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/04/02-ua-irc#T18-21-58