See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 29 April 2010
<janina> Meeting: HTML-A11Y telecon
<janina> Chair: Janina_Sajka
<janina> agenda: this
<JF> scribe = jf
<oedipus> scribe: John_Foliot
<oedipus> scribenick: JF
JS: tweak to agenda - review of open issues - UI issues
action item review
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - item
action 25 - Steve F
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - 25
will leave open - steve not on call
<kliehm> ACTION-25?
<trackbot> ACTION-25 -- Steve Faulkner to post notice to a11y TF about http://dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/ and how to make comments -- due 2010-04-22 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/25
will re-visit Issue26 later in the call
subteams: Canvas
RS: awaiting responses - nothing
heard over the last 2 weeks
... will 'shake the tree' on outstanding Canvas issues this
week
... affecting deadline - needs more comments
<oedipus> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-canvas-api/2010AprJun/0003.html
<oedipus> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-canvas-api/2010AprJun/att-0003/2dcontext10-Apr-11.html
RS: concern of exposing this
level of API
... Caret issues still needs resolution
... proposal exists - question is how does this get mapped to
A11y API/platform
<inserted> scribenick: oedipus
JF: had lenghthy but productive
call yesterday; touched on Javascript API for Text
Associations; talked about timestamp format; don't have concise
and formal rfequirements stateement -- spread over multiple
docs, JF has action item to distill into something clear and
cohesive
... playing catch-up; will submit document to TF when finished
so can base future work
... discussed media requirments versus feature reqs
... need to address a11y in <video> and <audio> -
urgency as is being implemented without a11y
... media in HTML5 - introduces multiple layers of
complexity
... short term needs and longer term needs and reqs; roadmap
for media work; very productive call; tough on attendees --
australians up early, europeans up late
... time was 3PM Vancouver time; workable -- will have series
of calls over next few weeks;
... will perhaps later move to every-other-week
SF: WHAT WG stuff -- where does that fit into what is being done in media subgroup
JF: underscores sense of urgency; implementation outside of our control - have to focus on what is being currently implemented; need to re-review WHAT WG req documents -- seems to be a pretty good start but have to check to see if included everything; will consider and use in collating document
http://www.w3.org/2010/04/28-html-a11y-minutes.html
JF: encourge TF members to review the WHAT WG materials
<JF> thanks Greg
<inserted> scribenick: JF
<inserted> JS: Wendy not on call
JS: propose we defer on this
JS: one vote recorded
against
... no-one else has commented
cyns: silence equals agreement?
JS: essentially, yes
<oedipus> i/TOPIC: Canvas Subgroup Report/TOPIC: Sub-groups/Sub-team Reports/
JS: suggestion is to vote on the
call
... not required to respond to the email - email offered the
opportunity to register your voice
MC: essentially silence DOES
equal concurance
... removes the ability to have an objection later down the
road
<oedipus> GJR does not object to closing CfC for issues 98, 91, 93, 95, 96, 97
<janina> RESOLUTION: The HTML-A11Y Task Force supports the zero-edit change
<janina> proposal at
<janina> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/KeepNewElements. We note
<janina> this proposal closely tracks our previously submitted recommendation
<janina> ISSUE-90 figure, ISSUE-91 aside, ISSUE-93 details, ISSUE-95 hidden,
<janina> ISSUE-96 progress, and ISSUE-97 meter at:
<janina> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Apr/1086.html
JS: per request of group from
last week, that we come up with a formal language here
... JS is there discussion? Is there opposition?
... declare that we accept this, and JS will formally forward
this to the WG Chairs
JS: almost closed this last week,
lacked formal language
... rectivated discussion on list this week
... 2 comments emerged
<richardschwerdtfe> need to drop off
JS: introduction of a "missing"
atribute
... not sure if we want to further perfect the original
proposal
... do we need to re-open?
<inserted> scribenick: oedipus
JF: responded late this morning before call -- discussing 2 issues on list - 1 is introduction of new attribute that is indicator that author explicitly declined to use alt text; second is crowd-sourcing or metadata mining as repair -- that is going back down the image hueristics issue which we voted down; need to de-link 2 issues; support specific indicator for missing @alt - indicates author provided opportunity to provide @alt text and did not; crowd-so
valid
JF: approved matt's statement on Issue 66 to strike OCR from text -- to me, crowd-sourcing and data-mining are similar
JS: personal statement (not wearing chair's hat) -- may have negative copyright implications - should stay clear of that; if not in spec, doesn't mean can't happen -- putting in spec gives far more credence than we are in position to accept
<JF> (thanks Greg)
KF: personally, agree with JS 100% -- dangerous thing to do
<inserted> scribenick: JF
JS: JS - anyone wishing to speak in favor of crowd-sourcing?
Cyns: adding it to UAAG might be a good idea, but not the spec
GJR: it could be added to SteveF's guidance document
JS: appears consensus of call
that crowdsourcing not be included in the spec
... JS leaves open the question what to do with the 'Flickr'
problem
<oedipus> GJR: would like to use SteveF's document to point out how crowd sourcing might work with a tool such as the w3c open source tool RDFPic
JS: a "missing' attribute would
not be objected to, but we leave to the HTML WG to decide
... not sure if it is important to hold up consensus of current
proposal
... appears that we have a good recommendation
Cyns: perhaps vote on the
existing proposal, and suggest a sperate Change Proposal for
any new attribute
... i.e. @missing or equiv
JS: I believe that this might be the better way forward
<oedipus_> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Apr/0332.html
SF: agrees that this kind of guidance could go into the guidance document he is working on
<oedipus_> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Apr/0332.html
GJR: yes, could add the metadata stuff he floated on the list to document steve is working on as well
<oedipus_> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Apr/0307.html
JS: steve's document will include both practical guidance and a look at future possibilities
GJR: will contribute proposed Appendix text for SteveF's textual alternatives "module"
<oedipus_> ACTION: Gregory - prepare text for SteveF's guidance document about future of data-mining using RDFPic methodology outlined in post to list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/04/29-html-a11y-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-28 - - prepare text for SteveF's guidance document about future of data-mining using RDFPic methodology outlined in post to list [on Gregory Rosmaita - due 2010-05-06].
<oedipus_> plus 1 to approval now with addendum later
<janina> RESOLUTION: The HTML-A11Y Task Force supports the change proposal at
<janina> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20090126to
<janina> implement WAI Consensus Guidance that a missing text alternative should
<janina> be an error in conformance checkers. We expect the error text will
<janina> reference additional guidance on text alternatives in WCAG support
<janina> materials.
proposal from cyns is to vote on previous/existing alt text proposal, and ask Laura et al to work on @missing or equiv separately
<oedipus> plus 1 to approval now with addendum later
JS: any discussion? any objections on adoption of the Change Propsoal?
<inserted> scribenick: oedipus
<inserted> RESOLUTION: The HTML-A11Y Task Force supports the change proposal at http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20090126to implement WAI Consensus Guidance that a missing text alternative should be an error in conformance checkers. We expect the error text will reference additional guidance on text alternatives in WCAG support materials.
<inserted> ScribeNick: JF
accepted
greg to re-format IRC log - thanks
Deadlines
JS: not just the a11y TF being
put under pressure
... HTML WG Chairs are pushing all TFs and groups
... heading towards a Last Call
... deadlines can be positive - they force decisions - no need
to continue talking
... and highlights real open issues
... as long as we are reasonable in moving forward
... agree to work with deadlines, as long as we remain in
control
... TF needs to start thinking seriously about deadlines
... example - media is still too wide open, however canvas is
well along and finding a deadline for that might be easier
GJR: one thing to ask the WG is to remember that we are replacing some things that have been remove - we are being asked to re-engineer some things, and that takes time
JS: aware that some old battles appear to be being re-fought
JS: suggesting late May for
Canvas resolution (20th or 27th)
... Wendy not on call to discuss Summary, but Proposal exist to
re-install @summary as found in HTML4 to act as a place
holder
... to remove 'pressure' for now, with understanding that we
are working on a more comprehensive solution
Cyns original proposal was poorly received by the WG, which is why she went back to it originally
PC: as a result to that significant feedback, Cyns went back to the drawing board, which is why Proposal B emerged - in another direction
Cyns: Proposal B doesn't seem to
be any less controversial than the orignal propsoal
... if we can get a position to re-instate the orignal
@summary, that would buy time
... but don't feel that this will move forward based upon
previous exchanges
PC: good question - if there was a bug that stated re-instate HTML4 accessibility issue (@summary) then that might work - asking for more guidance
might be feasible as an operational issue, but might not give us amuch actual guidance
Cyns: Cyns - what that would give us is taht we could stop arguing about it, and focus on real engineering work (canvas , ARIA mappings, etc.) - allows us to focus engineering resources on the hard bits
not on the emotional battles that many consider to be old news
+ 1 greg
<oedipus> GJR believes first question to be answered vis a vis summary is: attribute or element
JS: Wendy's work is on improving table analysis to reduce the need for a summary mechanism
SF: might be seen as a backwards
step
... won't move issue forward
<Zakim> oedipus, you wanted to say that we still have competing summary proposals
Cyns: *if* we could do this just for summary, might find reception
KF: agrees with most of what cyns said, however if should not propose something predicated upon something that may or may not happen in the future
<oedipus> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Table
<oedipus> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Table_Summary
Cyns: put back HTML4 text, work will continue, it may or may not be fruitful replacing some of the use-cases of summary
GJR: points out we have competing
proposals summary as attribute versus summary as an
element
... suggest we decide which thing it should be: attribute or
element
... gives us a clear path on whether we continue with the HTML4
perspective or as a new work effort
Cyns: would like to maintain
status quo, only because it works today - use as a deffering
move
... then address from an engineering issue down the road
JS: is there an objection here?
<oedipus> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Table_Summary#Proposals
<oedipus> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/summary_element
JS: We have a consensus on direction - JS and Cyns will work on language for a Recommendation for next week to formally address this
<oedipus> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/tableInfoProposal
<oedipus> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/tableSummaryProposal
for next week to formally address
<oedipus> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/SummaryAttribute20100222
<oedipus> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Details_element_as_a_replacement_for_summary_attribute,_Feb_15,_2010
<oedipus> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Summary_Change_Proposal_Nov_18,_2009
JS: HTML to ARIA mapping meetings on Tuesdays 3:00 PM Boston time
discussions
JS: other interested parties
invited to participate
... we appear to have real action and next steps to all
existing items
Action26 on Michael - remaining UI bugs
<MichaelC> Discussion on open bugs
<oedipus> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Apr/0283.html
MC: reviewed open bugs, and is
'stuck' because bugs discuss mor about what Use Agents should
do
... agrees that something should be said, but not sure if the
spec is the right place to say it
... 2 response today
... Laura and Ian so far
<oedipus> cooper's bug post: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Apr/0333.html
<oedipus> laura's reply: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Apr/0285.html
<oedipus> hixie's reply: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Apr/0322.html
<oedipus> hixie: If there are UI-specific requirements in the spec, please file bugs. In most cases, those are mistakes. (There's a few special cases where I have included UI requirements; those are generally either for accessibility or security reasons, and even those should generally only be "SHOULD"-level requirements.)
MC: would like to propose to take
Ian's interpretation - these are User Agent issues - and
proposes to close them
... they should not be spec bugs
... they are interface issues + we have other issues we are
working on
Cyns: what to do if we disagree
?
<oedipus> hixie: The distinction is between what is UI-agnostic UA behaviour and what is UI-specific UA behaviour.
SF: does this take into account things like Drag and Drop?
agrees that they should perhaps not be spec'ed, but they need to be referenced to guidance, etc.
MC: 1 criteria to use is to understand expected UI behavior
ie in Drag and Drop - not sure that it is complete enough to be accessible
having gone through the exercise, can see that this might be "mixed"
Cyns: not comfortable with Ian's blanket assertion that this doesn't apply to the spec
JS: next steps?
MC: with some of the bugs, it is clear what to do. those that are unclear to be put out and considered case-by-case
Cyns would prefer that
+1 from SF, and myself
JS: thanks all
<Laura> Hi Gregory.
<Laura> s/Hi Gregory.
<oedipus> s/Cyns original proposal was poorly received by the WG, which is why she went back to it originally/Cyns: original proposal was poorly received by the WG, which is why she went back to it originally/
<oedipus> s/might be feasible as an operational issue, but might not give us much actual guidance/PC: might be feasible as an operational issue, but might not give us much actual guidance/
<oedipus> s/proposal from cyns is to vote on previous/existing alt text proposal, and ask Laura et al to work on @missing or equiv separately/JS: proposal from cyns is to vote on previous stroke existing alt text proposal, and ask Laura et. al. to work on @missing or equiv separately/
<oedipus> s/greg will contribute/GJR: will contribute proposed Appendix text for SteveF's textual alternatives "module"/
<oedipus> i/subteams: Canvas/TOPIC: Canvas Subteam Report/
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135 of Date: 2009/03/02 03:52:20 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: i/JS tweak to agenda/TOPIC: Action Item Reviews Succeeded: s/ JS: discussed media requirments/JF: discussed media requirments/ Succeeded: i/JF: had lenghthy/scribenick: oedipus Succeeded: i/Summary Proposal - Wendy/scribenick: JF FAILED: i/subteams: Canvas/TOPIC: Sub-groups/Sub-team Reports Succeeded: i/subteams: Canvas/TOPIC: Sub-Group Reports Succeeded: i/JF: responded late/scribenick: oedipus Succeeded: i/JS - anyone/scribenick: JF Succeeded: i/accepted/RESOLUTION: The HTML-A11Y Task Force supports the change proposal at http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20090126to implement WAI Consensus Guidance that a missing text alternative should be an error in conformance checkers. We expect the error text will reference additional guidance on text alternatives in WCAG support materials. Succeeded: s/THREE MINUTE WARNING// Succeeded: s/mixe/mixed/ Succeeded: s/cse-by-case/case-by-case/ Succeeded: i/RESOLUTION: The HTML-A11Y/scribenick: oedipus Succeeded: i/accepted/ScribeNick: JF Succeeded: s/IRD log/IRC log/ Succeeded: s/SF - does this/SF: does this/ Succeeded: s/MC - 1 criteria/MC: 1 criteria/ Succeeded: s/Cyns - not comfortable/Cyns: not comfortable/ Succeeded: s/JS - next steps?/JS: next steps?/ Succeeded: s/MC - with some of the bugs/MC: with some of the bugs/ Succeeded: s/JS - thanks all/JS: thanks all/ Succeeded: s/MC reviewed open bugs,/MC: reviewed open bugs,/ Succeeded: s/MC would like to propose to take/MC: would like to propose to take/ Succeeded: s/agrees that something should be said/MC: agrees that something should be said/ Succeeded: s/2 response to day/MC: 2 response today/ Succeeded: s/Laura and Ian so far/MC: Laura and Ian so far/ Succeeded: s/they should not be spec bugs/MC: they should not be spec bugs/ Succeeded: s/they are interface issues + we have other issues we are working on/MC: they are interface issues + we have other issues we are working on/ Succeeded: s/Cyns, what to/Cyns: what to/ Succeeded: s/GR - points out we have competing proposals summary as attribute versus summary as an element/GJR: points out we have competing proposals summary as attribute versus summary as an element/ Succeeded: s/suggest we decide which thing it should be/GJR: suggest we decide which thing it should be: attribute or element/ Succeeded: s/gives us a clear path on whether we continue with the HTML4 perspective or as a new work effort/GJR: gives us a clear path on whether we continue with the HTML4 perspective or as a new work effort/ Succeeded: s/Cyns would like to maintain status quo, only because it works today - use as a deffering move/Cyns: would like to maintain status quo, only because it works today - use as a deffering move/ Succeeded: s/then address from an engineering issue down the road/Cyns: then address from an engineering issue down the road/ Succeeded: s/JS - is there an objection here?/JS: is there an objection here?/ Succeeded: s/SF - might be seen as a backwards step/SF: might be seen as a backwards step/ Succeeded: s/won't move issue forward/SF: won't move issue forward/ WARNING: Bad s/// command: s/Hi Gregory. Succeeded: s/JS - suggesting late may for Canvas resolution (20th or 27th)/JS: suggesting late May for Canvas resolution (20th or 27th)/ Succeeded: s/Wendy no t on call to discuss Summary, but Proposal exist to re-install @summary as found in HTML4 to act as a place holder/JS: Wendy not on call to discuss Summary, but Proposal exist to re-install @summary as found in HTML4 to act as a place holder/ Succeeded: s/to remove 'pressure' for now, with understanding that we are working on a more comprehensive solution/JS: to remove 'pressure' for now, with understanding that we are working on a more comprehensive solution/ FAILED: s/Cyns original proposal was poorly received by the WG, which is why she went back to it originally/Cyns: original proposal was poorly received by the WG, which is why she went back to it originally/ Succeeded: s/PC - as a result to that significant feedback, Cyns went back to the drawing board, which is why Proposal B emerged - in another direction/ PC: as a result to that significant feedback, Cyns went back to the drawing board, which is why Proposal B emerged - in another direction/ Succeeded: s/Cyns - Proposal B doesn't seem to be any less controversial than the orignal propsoal/Cyns: Proposal B doesn't seem to be any less controversial than the orignal propsoal/ Succeeded: s/if we can get a position to re-instate the orignal @summary, that would buy time/Cyns: if we can get a position to re-instate the orignal @summary, that would buy time/ Succeeded: s/but don't feel that this will move forward based upon previous exchanges/Cyns: but don't feel that this will move forward based upon previous exchanges/ Succeeded: s/PC - good question - if there was a bug that stated re-instate HTML4 accessibility issue (@summary) then that might work - asking for more guidance/PC: good question - if there was a bug that stated re-instate HTML4 accessibility issue (@summary) then that might work - asking for more guidance/ FAILED: s/might be feasible as an operational issue, but might not give us much actual guidance/PC: might be feasible as an operational issue, but might not give us much actual guidance/ Succeeded: s/Cyns - what that would give us is taht we could stop arguing about it, and focus on real engineering work (canvas , ARIA mappings, etc.) - allows us to focus engineering resources on the hard bits/Cyns: Cyns - what that would give us is taht we could stop arguing about it, and focus on real engineering work (canvas , ARIA mappings, etc.) - allows us to focus engineering resources on the hard bits/ Succeeded: s/Wendys work is on improving table analysis to reduce the need for a summary mechanism/JS: Wendy's work is on improving table analysis to reduce the need for a summary mechanism/ Succeeded: s/Cyn -*if* we could do this just for summary, might find reception/Cyns: *if* we could do this just for summary, might find reception/ Succeeded: s/KF - agrees with most, however if should not propose something predicated upon something that may or may not happen in the future/KF: agrees with most of what cyns said, however if should not propose something predicated upon something that may or may not happen in the future/ Succeeded: s/Cysn: putback HTML4/Cyns: put back HTML4/ Succeeded: s/not just the a11y TF being put under pressure/JS: not just the a11y TF being put under pressure/ Succeeded: s/Chairs are pushing all TFs and groups/JS: HTML WG Chairs are pushing all TFs and groups/ Succeeded: s/heading towards a Last Call/JS: heading towards a Last Call/ Succeeded: s/deadlines can be positive - they force decisions - no need to continue talking/JS: deadlines can be positive - they force decisions - no need to continue talking/ Succeeded: s/and highlights real open issues/JS: and highlights real open issues/ Succeeded: s/as long as we are reasonable in moving forward/JS: as long as we are reasonable in moving forward/ Succeeded: s/JS agrees to work with deadlines, as long as we remain in control/JS: agree to work with deadlines, as long as we remain in control/ Succeeded: s/TF needs to start thinking seriously about deadlines/JS: TF needs to start thinking seriously about deadlines/ Succeeded: s/example - media is still too wide open, however canvas is well along and finding a deadline for that might be easier/JS: example - media is still too wide open, however canvas is well along and finding a deadline for that might be easier/ Succeeded: s/GR - one thing to ask the WG is to remember that we are replacing some things that have been remove - we are being asked to re-engineer some things, and that takes time/GJR: one thing to ask the WG is to remember that we are replacing some things that have been remove - we are being asked to re-engineer some things, and that takes time/ Succeeded: s/JS - aware that some old battles appear to be being re-fought/JS: aware that some old battles appear to be being re-fought/ Succeeded: s/greg will contribute/GJR: will contribute proposed Appendix text for SteveF's textual alternatives "module"/ Succeeded: s/steves document will include both practical guidance and a look at future possibilities/JS: steve's document will include both practical guidance and a look at future possibilities/ Succeeded: s/GR - yes, could add the metadata stuff he floated on the list to document steve is working on as well/GJR: yes, could add the metadata stuff he floated on the list to document steve is working on as well/ Succeeded: s/SF - agrees that this kind of guidance could go into the guidance document he is working on/SF: agrees that this kind of guidance could go into the guidance document he is working on/ Succeeded: s/JS - I believe that this might be the better way forward/JS: I believe that this might be the better way forward/ Succeeded: s/JS - anyone wishing to speak in favor of crowd-sourcing?/JS: JS - anyone wishing to speak in favor of crowd-sourcing?/ Succeeded: s/Cyns - adding it to UAAG might be a good idea, but not the spec/Cyns: adding it to UAAG might be a good idea, but not the spec/ Succeeded: s/GR - suggests that it could be added to SteveF's guidance document/GJR: it could be added to SteveF's guidance document/ Succeeded: s/appears consensus of call that crowdsourcing not be included in the spec/JS: appears consensus of call that crowdsourcing not be included in the spec/ Succeeded: s/JS leaves open the question what to do with the 'Flickr' problen/JS: JS leaves open the question what to do with the 'Flickr' problem/ Succeeded: s/a "missing' attribute would not be objected to, but we leave to the HTML WG to decide/JS: a "missing' attribute would not be objected to, but we leave to the HTML WG to decide/ Succeeded: s/not sure if it is important to hold up consensus of current proposal/JS: not sure if it is important to hold up consensus of current proposal/ Succeeded: s/appears that we have a good recommendation/JS: appears that we have a good recommendation/ Succeeded: s/Cyns - perhaps vote on the/Cyns: perhaps vote on the/ Succeeded: s/ie @missing or equiv/Cyns: i.e. @missing or equiv/ WARNING: Bad s/// command: s/proposal from cyns is to vote on previous/existing alt text proposal, and ask Laura et al to work on @missing or equiv separately/JS: proposal from cyns is to vote on previous stroke existing alt text proposal, and ask Laura et. al. to work on @missing or equiv separately/ Succeeded: s/JS ask for any discussion? any objections on adoption of the Change Propsoal/JS: any discussion? any objections on adoption of the Change Propsoal?/ FAILED: s/greg will contribute/GJR: will contribute proposed Appendix text for SteveF's textual alternatives "module"/ Succeeded: s/per request of group from last week, that we come up with a fomarl language here/JS: per request of group from last week, that we come up with a formal language here/ Succeeded: s/JS is there discussion? Is there opposition?/JS: JS is there discussion? Is there opposition?/ Succeeded: s/JS declares that we accept this, and JS will formally forward this to the WG Chairs/JS: declare that we accept this, and JS will formally forward this to the WG Chairs/ Succeeded: s/Next: Missing ALT/TOPIC: Missing @alt/ Succeeded: s/almost closed this last week, lacked formal language/JS: almost closed this last week, lacked formal language/ Succeeded: s/rectivated discussion on list this week/JS: rectivated discussion on list this week/ Succeeded: s/2 comments emerged/JS: 2 comments emerged/ Succeeded: s/introduction of a "missing" atribute/JS: introduction of a "missing" atribute/ Succeeded: s/not sure if we want to further perfect the original proposal/JS: not sure if we want to further perfect the original proposal/ Succeeded: s/do we need to re-open/JS: do we need to re-open?/ Succeeded: s/suggestion is to vote on the call/JS: suggestion is to vote on the call/ Succeeded: s/not required to respond to the email - email offered the opportunity to register your voice/JS: not required to respond to the email - email offered the opportunity to register your voice/ Succeeded: s/MC - essentially silence *does* = concurance/MC: essentially silence DOES equal concurance/ Succeeded: s/removes the ability to have an objection later down the road/MC: removes the ability to have an objection later down the road/ Succeeded: s/Summary Proposal - Wendy not on call/TOPIC: Summary Proposal/ Succeeded: i/defer on this/JS: Wendy not on call Succeeded: s/defer on this/JS: propose we defer on this/ Succeeded: s/CfC on the Zero Edits Resolution/TOPIC: CfC on the Zero Edits Resolution/ Succeeded: s/Issues 90, 91, 93, 95, 96, 97/TOPIC: Issues 90, 91, 93, 95, 96, 97/ Succeeded: s/one vote recorded against/JS: one vote recorded against/ Succeeded: s/no-one else has commented/JS: no-one else has commented/ Succeeded: s/cyns - silence=agreement?/cyns: silence equals agreement?/ Succeeded: s/JS - essentially, yes/JS: essentially, yes/ Succeeded: s/JS tweak to agenda - review of open issues - UI issues/JS: tweak to agenda - review of open issues - UI issues/ Succeeded: s/awaiting responses - nothing heard over the last 2 weeks/RS: awaiting responses - nothing heard over the last 2 weeks/ Succeeded: s/Rich will 'shake the tree' this week/RS: will 'shake the tree' on outstanding Canvas issues this week/ Succeeded: s/affecting deadline - needs more comments/RS: affecting deadline - needs more comments/ Succeeded: s/concern of exposing this level of API/RS: concern of exposing this level of API/ Succeeded: s/Caret issue/RS: Caret issues still needs resolution/ Succeeded: s/porposal exists - question is/RS: proposal exists - question is/ Succeeded: s/We have a consensus on direction - JS and Cyns will work on language for a Recommendation/JS: We have a consensus on direction - JS and Cyns will work on language for a Recommendation for next week to formally address this/ Succeeded: s/Tuesdays 3:00 PM// Succeeded: s/Boston// Succeeded: s/mappings to ARIA/HTML to ARIA mapping meetings on Tuesdays 3:00 PM Boston time/ Succeeded: s/other interested parties invited to participate/JS: other interested parties invited to participate/ Succeeded: s/we appear to have real action and next steps to all existing items/JS: we appear to have real action and next steps to all existing items/ Succeeded: s/HTML to ARIA mapping meetings on Tuesdays 3:00 PM Boston time/JS: HTML to ARIA mapping meetings on Tuesdays 3:00 PM Boston time/ Succeeded: i/JF: had lenghthy/TOPIC: Media Subgroup Succeeded: s/subteams: Canvas/TOPIC: Canvas Subgroup Report/ FAILED: i/subteams: Canvas/TOPIC: Canvas Subteam Report Succeeded: i/RS: awaiting response/TOPIC: Canvas Subgroup Update Succeeded: s/'mixe'/"mixed"/ Succeeded: s/mixedd// Found Scribe: John_Foliot WARNING: No scribe lines found matching ScribeNick pattern: <John_Foliot> ... Found ScribeNick: JF Found ScribeNick: oedipus Found ScribeNick: JF Found ScribeNick: oedipus Found ScribeNick: JF Found ScribeNick: oedipus WARNING: No scribe lines found matching ScribeNick pattern: <oedipus> ... Found ScribeNick: JF ScribeNicks: JF, oedipus Default Present: John_Foliot, Eric, Janina, Michael_Cooper, kliehm, Gregory_Rosmaita, Jim_Allan, Janina_Sajka, Marco, Kelly_Ford, Sean_Hayes, Paul_Cotton, Rich, Ben, Cynthia_Shelly, Steve_Faulkner, +1.617.300.aaaa, Geoff_Freed, David_Bolter Present: Ben Cynthia_Shelly David_Bolter Eric Geoff_Freed Gregory_Rosmaita Janina Janina_Sajka Jim_Allan John_Foliot Kelly_Ford Marco Michael_Cooper Paul_Cotton Rich Sean_Hayes Steve_Faulkner kliehm Regrets: Laura_Carlson Sylvia_Pfeiffer Denis_Boudreau Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Apr/0308.html Found Date: 29 Apr 2010 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2010/04/29-html-a11y-minutes.html People with action items: gregory WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]