IRC log of text on 2011-04-18

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:50:43 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #text
14:50:43 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:52:22 [judy]
zakim, this will be WAI_PF(Text)
14:52:22 [Zakim]
ok, judy; I see WAI_PF(Text)11:30AM scheduled to start in 38 minutes
14:52:30 [judy]
chair: Judy
14:53:20 [judy]
agenda+Identify Scribe (list for PFWG generally: )
14:53:20 [judy]
agenda+Organizing Our Work
14:53:20 [judy]
agenda+Recurring rationales in rejected proposals on text alternatives, including: longdesc: ; table-summary: ; poster-alt:
14:53:20 [judy]
agenda+Information requested and/or open questions
14:53:22 [judy]
agenda+Discussions and/or actions needed to progress the issues; confirm who/when
14:53:23 [judy]
agenda+Other business?
14:53:26 [judy]
agenda+Identify Scribe for next call; adjourn
14:58:25 [oedipus]
oedipus has joined #text
14:59:14 [oedipus]
oedipus has changed the topic to: HTML-A11Y Text Subteam on 18 April at 15:30Z for 90 minutes - agenda: (oedipus)
15:12:20 [mranon]
mranon has joined #text
15:25:27 [JF]
JF has joined #text
15:27:28 [JF]
trackbot, start meeting
15:28:08 [JF]
Grr... still learning this stuff - command?
15:28:16 [oedipus]
trackbot, please join
15:28:37 [JF]
trackbot, start meeting
15:29:37 [richardschwerdtfe]
richardschwerdtfe has joined #text
15:29:52 [oedipus]
15:30:00 [Zakim]
WAI_PF(Text)11:30AM has now started
15:30:07 [Zakim]
15:30:16 [judy]
zakim, code?
15:30:16 [Zakim]
the conference code is 2119 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+ tel:+44.203.318.0479), judy
15:30:25 [Zakim]
15:30:42 [Zakim]
15:30:55 [LynnH]
LynnH has joined #text
15:31:10 [Zakim]
15:31:25 [mranon]
zakim, ??P0 is me
15:31:25 [Zakim]
+mranon; got it
15:31:29 [judy]
zakim, P7 is Steve_Faulkner
15:31:29 [Zakim]
sorry, judy, I do not recognize a party named 'P7'
15:31:32 [Zakim]
15:31:33 [janina]
janina has joined #text
15:31:36 [judy]
zakim, ??P7 is Steve_Faulkner
15:31:36 [Zakim]
+Steve_Faulkner; got it
15:31:59 [Zakim]
15:32:17 [judy]
zakim, ??P0 is Marco_Ranon
15:32:17 [Zakim]
I already had ??P0 as mranon, judy
15:32:26 [Zakim]
15:32:48 [mranon]
zakim, mute me
15:32:48 [Zakim]
mranon should now be muted
15:32:54 [JF]
agenda+ Identify Scribe (list for PFWG generally:
15:32:56 [JF] )
15:32:57 [JF]
agenda+ Organizing Our Work
15:32:59 [judy]
zakim, ??P5 is Janina_Sajka
15:32:59 [Zakim]
+Janina_Sajka; got it
15:32:59 [JF]
agenda+ Recurring rationales in rejected proposals on text
15:33:00 [JF]
alternatives, including: longdesc:
15:33:02 [JF] ;
15:33:03 [JF]
15:33:05 [JF] ;
15:33:07 [JF]
15:33:08 [JF]
agenda+ Information requested and/or open questions Discussions and/or
15:33:10 [JF]
agenda+ actions needed to progress the issues;
15:33:11 [JF]
confirm who/when
15:33:13 [JF]
agenda+ Other business?
15:33:14 [JF]
agenda+ Identify Scribe for next call; adjourn
15:33:59 [judy]
zakim, drop agendum 8
15:33:59 [Zakim]
agendum 8, Identify Scribe (list for PFWG generally:, dropped
15:34:08 [Zakim]
+ +44.203.239.aaaa
15:34:10 [JF]
zakim, drop agendum 9
15:34:10 [Zakim]
agendum 9, Organizing Our Work, dropped
15:34:33 [JF]
zakim, drop agendum 10
15:34:33 [Zakim]
agendum 10, Recurring rationales in rejected proposals on text, dropped
15:34:37 [JF]
zakim, drop agendum 11
15:34:37 [Zakim]
agendum 11, Information requested and/or open questions Discussions and/or, dropped
15:34:42 [JF]
zakim, drop agendum 12
15:34:42 [Zakim]
agendum 12, actions needed to progress the issues;, dropped
15:34:48 [JF]
zakim, drop agendum 13
15:34:48 [Zakim]
agendum 13, Other business?, dropped
15:34:53 [JF]
zakim, drop agendum 14
15:34:53 [Zakim]
agendum 14, Identify Scribe for next call; adjourn, dropped
15:35:06 [JF]
zaxim, item 1
15:35:13 [mranon]
zakim, umute me
15:35:13 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'umute me', mranon
15:35:16 [JF]
zakim, item 1
15:35:16 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'item 1', JF
15:35:24 [mranon]
zakim, unmute me
15:35:24 [Zakim]
mranon should no longer be muted
15:35:27 [JF]
zakim, agendum 1
15:35:27 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'agendum 1', JF
15:35:44 [judy]
zakim, 44.203.239.aaaa is Lynn Holdsworth
15:35:44 [Zakim]
I don't understand '44.203.239.aaaa is Lynn Holdsworth', judy
15:35:45 [LynnH]
zakim, mute me
15:35:46 [Zakim]
sorry, LynnH, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
15:35:50 [JF]
zakim, next item
15:35:50 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "Identify Scribe (list for PFWG generally: )" taken up [from judy]
15:35:58 [JF]
scribe: jf
15:36:02 [oedipus]
zakim, LynnH is Lynn Holdsworth
15:36:02 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'LynnH is Lynn Holdsworth', oedipus
15:36:11 [JF]
zakim, next item
15:36:11 [Zakim]
agendum 1 was just opened, JF
15:36:18 [oedipus]
zakim, Lynn Holdsworth is LynnH
15:36:18 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'Lynn Holdsworth is LynnH', oedipus
15:36:36 [JF]
zakim, agenda tem 2
15:36:36 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'agenda tem 2', JF
15:37:12 [LynnH]
zakim, unmute me
15:37:12 [Zakim]
sorry, LynnH, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
15:37:23 [oedipus]
i/MK: moved my actions to 25th/scribenick: oedipus/
15:37:39 [oedipus]
i/action-762?/scribenick: mattking/
15:37:45 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate oedipus
15:38:38 [LynnH]
zakim, mute me
15:38:38 [Zakim]
sorry, LynnH, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
15:39:07 [JF]
As JF struggles with zakim commands, attendees round-robin introductions
15:39:27 [JF]
close agendum
15:39:32 [JF]
zakim, close agendum
15:39:32 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'close agendum', JF
15:39:46 [JF]
zakim, next agendum
15:39:46 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "Organizing Our Work" taken up [from judy]
15:40:14 [JF]
JB: we may have others join the call today as scheduling permits
15:41:08 [JF]
JB: review of goals of this sub-team
15:41:26 [JF]
concerns about longdesc, table summary, poster-alt
15:42:13 [JF]
we will look at each of these decisions and have discussions where useful, analyze , offer clarifications, etc.
15:42:52 [JF]
if that is not successful, then sub-group may look at FO, possibly coupled with expedited appeals to the director
15:43:12 [JF]
Judy can offer details and background on process options if required
15:43:26 [JF]
hopes that this is not the main focus of this group howeer
15:44:28 [JF]
JB: any further comments, questions or scope of this sub-group
15:44:52 [JF]
JS: nothing to add, this was a good summary
15:45:04 [Stevef]
Stevef has joined #text
15:47:11 [oedipus]
JF: logged FO against chairs' poster decision
15:48:16 [JF]
MY FO for Poster-alt:
15:48:20 [oedipus]
15:49:25 [JF]
name of group: text alternatives sub-group - any objections?
15:49:56 [JF]
JB: with no objections, that's the name of the group
15:50:29 [JF]
JB: organization: between the 3 different items to date, there seems to be some similarities across the 3
15:50:57 [JF]
we have seen a lot of on-line discussion on these topics as well
15:51:26 [JF]
hope to identify any questions or differences of opinion, etc.
15:51:40 [JF]
hope that we can clarify and resolve quickly
15:52:10 [JF]
Judy may ask people on the calls to seek greater clarity. we may need to use some wiki space to manage this
15:52:35 [JF]
zakim, next agendum
15:52:35 [Zakim]
agendum 3. "Recurring rationales in rejected proposals on text alternatives, including: longdesc: ; table-summary:
15:52:42 [Zakim]
... ; poster-alt:" taken up [from judy]
15:53:05 [JF]
JB: who has read all 3 of these in detail
15:53:27 [oedipus]
GJR has
15:53:45 [JF]
SF: have read them, looking for the recurring similarities, don't actually see anything
15:54:25 [JF]
JB: items such as low usage, hidden data, etc.
15:54:39 [JF]
SF: these were countered as weak arguments
15:55:03 [JF]
JB: items such s uncontested arguments
15:55:46 [oedipus]
15:55:46 [JF]
SF: the chairs looked at various items, and rejected many items as weak arguments
15:56:12 [JF]
JB: low usage as a weak argument was a concern
15:56:23 [oedipus]
HTML 4.01 was subject to an intensive analysis for potential and known accessibility issues before it became a recommendation in December 1997. By the time activity on HTML5 was moved to the W3C, however, many such features had been stripped from HTML, many as "neglible use cases". Since then, however, previously deprecated accessibility features have begun to creep back into HTML5. This...
15:56:25 [oedipus]
...change proposal, therefore, seeks to provide a safety net for known, implemented features, functions, and syntax which was specifically added to HTML 4.01 to increase accessibility, and for which there have not been any advances or improvements in HTML5. This is particularly important as HTML5 is being implemented piecemeal by developers, before a static specification is achieved --...
15:56:26 [oedipus]
...therefore, HTML5 should retain those accessibility features of HTML in order to facillitate the ability of persons with disabilities to use sites and user agents that are incrementally phasing in support for HTML5 markup.
15:56:28 [oedipus]
15:56:42 [JF]
low frequency argument is seen as damaging to accessibility
15:57:08 [JF]
reviewing the different rejections, one of the other issues was concerns about hidden meta-data
15:57:14 [JF]
link-rot, etc.
15:58:08 [JF]
longdesc, table summary, etc. may evolve, move to ARIA as a stronger mechanism
15:58:19 [JF]
(JF =1 to Judy)
15:58:34 [JF]
15:58:58 [JF]
JB: use this group to clarify and get stronger consensus on these topics
15:59:08 [JF]
15:59:23 [oedipus]
15:59:25 [Stevef]
16:00:17 [richardschwerdtfe]
16:01:08 [oedipus]
JF: 1 thing mentioned was moving some of these things into ARIA as new "home" for evolution of accessibility solutions -- want to express concern about that -- backwards move to push a11y on ARIA -- ARIA bridging tech until needed native semantics provided by ML devs; concerned moving in backwards directtion; ARIA is not the savior/only solution -- open to being convinced i am wrong, but...
16:01:10 [oedipus]
...think that ARIA as it evolved was for dynamic web content (JS and widgets, roles, states and properties)
16:01:13 [oedipus]
ack JF
16:01:21 [oedipus]
ack Steve
16:01:28 [JF]
16:01:36 [JF]
I have a different opinion to John
16:01:50 [JF]
re: ghettoiazation and step backward
16:02:14 [JF]
these are very specific solutions to specific problems, prefer to see more generic solutions to these problems
16:02:42 [JF]
some say that it might be better to have an attibute that has greater reach - could be used with canvas etc.
16:02:55 [JF]
hving a more generic method makes it more extensibile
16:03:27 [JF]
RS: bridging technology argument was to appease the HTML WG
16:03:45 [JF]
honestly, to just sprinkle some semantics on something to make it accessible is a good thing
16:04:01 [JF]
adds declarations easily
16:04:20 [JF]
in native OS, this is very complicated
16:04:34 [JF]
with ARIA, set an attribute, and the browser does all the heavy lifting
16:04:47 [JF]
now we can use ARIA to support SVG, and standard controls
16:04:49 [oedipus]
q+ to ask about ARIA for those not using AT
16:04:56 [oedipus]
ack rich
16:05:11 [JF]
there remains a lot of work on the standard controls
16:05:40 [JF]
the problem I now have is that the HTML5 implementation for sthings like summary is inconsistant across browsers
16:06:09 [JF]
there are multiple things that authors need to do, and when we move to other languages it does it differently
16:06:25 [JF]
having a consistant way of doing this across many languages is a positive thing
16:06:39 [JF]
now that ARIA is part of the HTML5 spec, we have som win
16:06:55 [oedipus]
16:07:02 [JF]
it was designed to be a cross-cutting solution for multiple languges
16:07:23 [judy]
16:07:32 [oedipus]
what does aria-label mean for someone not using AT?
16:07:59 [JF]
positive to have have something across multiple OSes and browsers
16:08:34 [JF]
robust ARIA would even make WCAG2 easier
16:08:51 [JF]
JB: thanks for the input to date from JF, SF, RS
16:09:14 [JF]
would like to pull out some requirements
16:09:22 [judy]
zakim, who's making noise?
16:09:27 [Zakim]
16:09:33 [Zakim]
judy, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Gregory_Rosmaita (76%), Rich (5%)
16:09:35 [richardschwerdtfe]
I just lost my phone
16:09:37 [richardschwerdtfe]
16:09:40 [richardschwerdtfe]
be right back
16:09:46 [JF]
GJR: appreciate the therory, but what is the impact on users not using AT?
16:09:48 [Stevef]
apologies I have to go
16:10:12 [Zakim]
16:10:22 [JF]
(waiting for RS to re-join us)
16:10:44 [janina]
16:10:46 [JF]
GJR: it is very appealing to have one common syntax
16:11:02 [Zakim]
16:11:22 [JF]
but most of this is designed to work with a11y APIs, and there are a large portion of users not using AT that needs some of this
16:11:33 [JF]
we need to re-examine some of the basic assumptions of ARIA
16:11:47 [JF]
RS: does summary actually show up?
16:12:32 [JF]
RS: works with AT.
16:12:56 [JF]
GJR: how does ARIA labeledby work for users who are not using AT?
16:13:19 [JF]
RS: if you have a table with @summary, what does a sighted user see?
16:13:24 [JF]
16:13:30 [JF]
16:13:31 [oedipus]
ack oe
16:13:31 [Zakim]
oedipus, you wanted to ask about ARIA for those not using AT
16:13:57 [JF]
wants to check something here. Is revisiting ARIA something that can be done without re-opening ARIA
16:14:08 [JF]
as advisory data - styling, etc.
16:14:16 [oedipus]
ack jud
16:14:49 [JF]
JB: one thing to note is that changing the way a11y is being designed due to appeasement is a bad way to design
16:15:08 [JF]
hope that this is not the main factor in revisiting
16:15:18 [oedipus]
GJR wanted to point out if move towards aria-based solution, will need a massive new addition to the ARIA Authoring and Best Practices documents
16:15:22 [JF]
if better a11y is achieved by restoring these features, we should go that way
16:15:39 [JF]
however if a11y can be met better by using ARIA, then that is important info as well
16:15:47 [JF]
hears different points of view
16:15:57 [JF]
would be good to prove this in fact
16:16:24 [JF]
not eager to take a long detour, but curious to check to see how much agreement there might be]
16:16:32 [JF]
ie: cross UA support, etc.
16:16:40 [oedipus]
s/Authoring and Best Practices documents/Authoring and Best Practices documents on how to design so that ARIA info is communicated to those not using an assistive technology/
16:16:54 [judy]
testing potential agreement on a simple set of requirements:
16:17:25 [JF]
J how easily could we get cross UA support of ARIA
16:17:49 [JF]
RS: we just positioned ARIA as a bridging technology - everything will be handled by the host language
16:18:00 [JF]
we did not intend that/d o that
16:18:20 [JF]
we didn't use ARIA to apease the WG
16:18:34 [JF]
JB: not a 'diss' on ARIA
16:19:14 [JF]
JB: one of the things I am wondering is I hear people express different opinions and map against requirements
16:19:32 [JF]
hear concerns about cross UA support from GJR and JF
16:19:42 [oedipus]
any info conveyed to an a11y API via ARIA would also need to be conveyed in a device independent manner to non-AT users
16:19:53 [JF]
second item is that implementationn is important
16:20:46 [JF]
other item of concern is consistancy in implementation
16:20:56 [JF]
one requirement to not break backward compat
16:21:11 [JF]
there is a body of @longdesc content in existance already
16:21:13 [oedipus]
doesn't HTML5 have a mandate about backwards compatibility -- will check
16:21:18 [JF]
this may introduce conerns
16:21:37 [JF]
would it be useful to state some of this as shared views of requirements?
16:21:42 [judy]
16:21:53 [oedipus]
proposed requirements for verbose descriptor mechanisms:
16:21:59 [JF]
JS: glad to see us talking about not breaking backward compat
16:22:00 [oedipus]
ack ja
16:22:22 [JF]
if we go around on these diff attributes, we can pretty much agree that there is something there that neads to be captured
16:22:55 [JF]
we need a programaticaly specific means to select the larger data, and not always be forced it
16:23:02 [oedipus]
strong plus 1 on ARIA-as-filtering device utility
16:23:13 [JF]
so if is all in the same kind of element (attribute) it may not be useful
16:23:44 [JF]
I like that ARIA is mapping to APIs here, but we are also violating a fundemental principle by throwing out the old in favor of the new, when the new is unclear
16:24:09 [oedipus]
s/I like that ARIA is mapping/JS: I like that ARIA is mapping/
16:24:13 [richardschwerdtfe]
16:24:16 [richardschwerdtfe]
16:24:18 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate oedipus
16:24:20 [JF]
so when looking at items such as table summary, the weaker objection says use ARIA - fine but not yet implelemented
16:24:39 [JF]
seems short sighted to simply suggest that ARIA is ready for replacement
16:24:40 [judy]
16:24:50 [JF]
(+1 to Janina re: obsolencence)
16:24:54 [oedipus]
rrsagent, make logs public
16:24:59 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate oedipus
16:25:02 [JF]
can we improve longdesc and summary? yes
16:25:37 [JF]
underlying principle is that we not discard historical attributes, relyability of our work
16:25:52 [JF]
keep the baseline we have already established - we have others that expect us to do so
16:26:07 [JF]
we are not yet there on understaning how ARIA can solve all these issues
16:26:30 [JF]
JB: will go through the queue
16:27:04 [oedipus]
JF: one thing important is to look at what has already started to happen -- concerned about @longdesc -- talked with many devs face2face -- discoverability issue is the "problem" -- not the mechanism
16:27:38 [oedipus]
JF: poked chaals, and there is now plug-in for @longdesc for opera with a visual indication and a DI-independent way of exposition
16:28:18 [oedipus]
JF: a11y features of HTML4 available for over a decade -- should honor that -- issue is that we have mechanisms in place, problem is doing something usefull for sighted users with a11y -specific markup
16:28:51 [oedipus]
JF: takes a while for adaptation -- next major step is GUI based browsers need to do something useful with this stuff--already supported if UA supports HTML4
16:29:15 [oedipus]
JF: moving techs into cross-ML support doc is good, but concerned about throwing out what is available and should reamain available
16:29:32 [JF]
RS: the thing I had the biggest issue with is that I agree that dumping @longdesc completely is a problem
16:29:39 [JF]
we need a deprecation strategy
16:29:57 [JF]
to give us a chance to get WCAG 2, EOWG to get ducks in order
16:30:05 [JF]
but cold-turkey dumping is busted
16:30:14 [oedipus]
meeting: Text Alternatives Subgroup of HTML Accessibility Task Force
16:30:23 [JF]
JB: anybody disagree with rich's point? (none)
16:30:39 [JF]
example of something that hope to communicate in an organized way
16:30:44 [oedipus]
16:30:52 [JF]
we worked hard to make these points
16:31:06 [JF]
can we capture that as a resoultion for this group?
16:31:44 [JF]
touching on the history of these features/attributes as part of our discussion
16:31:48 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate oedipus
16:31:59 [oedipus]
proposed requirements for verbose descriptor mechanisms:
16:32:01 [judy]
16:32:02 [JF]
can we focus on link that GJR added re: requirements
16:32:34 [JF]
one question is: how much consensus has this page had in any of the TF meetings?
16:32:53 [JF]
GJR: this was a direct reaction to the chairs announcement to remove @longdesc
16:33:02 [JF]
collect requirements in an agnostic manner
16:33:14 [JF]
purposefully written to not be bound to a specific solution
16:33:39 [JF]
JS: re- process. this was voted out by the PFWG as a recommendation
16:34:00 [JF]
JB: can we look at this for a few minutes
16:34:08 [oedipus]
requirement 1: A programmatic mechanism to reference a specific set of structured content, either internal or external to the document containing the described image.
16:34:33 [JF]
one of the things that stands out to me is undre progrmaitically determinable
16:34:43 [JF]
seems to be leaving out the specific technologies
16:35:00 [oedipus]
16:35:05 [JF]
the requirement for cross UA reqs does not stand out
16:35:21 [JF]
JB: are the other things that may be missing
16:35:39 [oedipus]
definition of programmatically determinable: A long description needs to be programmatically determinable. This relates to the information in web content. If technologies that are accessibility supported are used properly, then assistive technologies and user agents can access the information in the content (i.e., programmatically determine the information in the content) and present it to...
16:35:41 [oedipus]
...the user. For instance longdesc as an attribute should be used as a hook by user agents and asssistive technologies in order to notify the user that a long description exists, so even if longdesc is applied to an image that also serves as a link, it is programmatically determinable to separate the activation of the longdesc for exposure from the UA's universal link activation action...
16:35:43 [oedipus]
...(which is usually activated with the ENTER key, the SpaceBar, or by mouse click), so that the linked image retains the expected behavior in response to user interaction while a discrete mechanism is used to retrieve the long description. HTML4 puts it this way,"Since an IMG element may be within the content of an A element, the user agent's mechanism in the user interface for accessing...
16:35:44 [judy]
16:35:45 [oedipus]
...the 'longdesc' resource of the former must be different than the mechanism for accessing the href resource of the latter."
16:36:05 [JF]
JS: on the progrmatically determinable - if there is no means to do so, it is always there as text
16:36:18 [JF]
ack JF
16:36:42 [richardschwerdtfe]
16:36:43 [judy]
ack Ri
16:36:48 [judy]
ack ju
16:37:04 [oedipus]
GJR: programmatically determinable important to specify that there must be a means to separate the activation of the longdesc for exposure from the UA's universal link activation action
16:37:10 [JF]
JB: are people on the call familiar with this document
16:37:23 [JF]
is this the right group to be catching this doc in the TF?
16:37:43 [mranon]
16:37:53 [JF]
JS: likely yes. PF felt it could likely use some wordsmithing, but get it out for discussion
16:38:00 [JF]
soon rather than later
16:38:38 [judy]
action: gregory add status to verbose descriptor requirements
16:38:56 [oedipus]
s/programmatically determinable important to specify that there must be a means to separate the activation of the longdesc for exposure from the UA's universal link activation action/programmatically determinable important to specify that there must be a means to separate the activation of the longdesc for an image functioning as a link without automatically causing link to be exposed using...
16:38:58 [oedipus]
...UA's universal link activation action/
16:39:08 [JF]
JB: from the history, seems that mostly GJR and laura did the bulk of authoring
16:39:24 [judy]
16:39:25 [JF]
the specific sets of requirements - there are 8 of them
16:39:38 [oedipus]
16:40:20 [JF]
reviewing the 8 reqs seeking consensus
16:40:57 [JF]
GJR, one idea is to put up another document with these 8 as an ordered list, with more prose
16:41:42 [LynnH]
zakim, unmute me
16:41:42 [Zakim]
sorry, LynnH, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
16:41:44 [judy]
zakim, who's here?
16:41:44 [Zakim]
On the phone I see John_Foliot, Judy, mranon, Janina_Sajka, Gregory_Rosmaita, +44.203.239.aaaa, Rich
16:41:47 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Stevef, janina, LynnH, richardschwerdtfe, JF, mranon, oedipus, RRSAgent, Zakim, judy
16:41:58 [JF]
JB: checking around the call to see if there is consensus on these points
16:42:09 [oedipus]
zakim, aaaa is LynnH
16:42:09 [Zakim]
+LynnH; got it
16:42:18 [JF]
LH: still reading up on the background, not comfortable to comment
16:42:31 [LynnH]
zakim, mute me
16:42:31 [Zakim]
LynnH should now be muted
16:42:59 [JF]
MR: actually also contributed to the initial document that Laura started. Happy with this document however
16:43:44 [Zakim]
16:44:31 [JF]
JB: looking at the standing requirements - could everyone take an action to revisit these 8 reqs and see if we can on next call address any lack of consensus?
16:44:50 [JF]
does this include not breaking forward/backward compat
16:45:11 [oedipus]
16:45:23 [JF]
GJR: concern to not muddy the issue - this is mentioned in the how to satisfy
16:45:38 [JF]
JB: believes that not breaking backward compat is fundemental
16:46:53 [JF]
if the decisions of the WG were being reviewed, and if the review needed a basic set of reqs, shouldn't backward compat be there?
16:47:05 [JF]
JS: backward compat should be a higher level concept
16:47:43 [JF]
JB: if we were talking about new reqs (i.e alt-poster) then some cases there is substancial amount of legacy content
16:47:44 [oedipus]
advantages and disadvantages of solutions for verbose description requirements contained in detail in
16:48:12 [judy]
zakim, who's here?
16:48:12 [Zakim]
On the phone I see John_Foliot, Judy, Janina_Sajka, Gregory_Rosmaita, LynnH (muted), Rich
16:48:15 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Stevef, janina, LynnH, richardschwerdtfe, JF, oedipus, RRSAgent, Zakim, judy
16:48:23 [JF]
JS: the absence of a means to properly identify the image violates a fundemental req
16:48:47 [JF]
JB: can we look at the requirments section of the document with a fresh look in light of 3 rejected features
16:48:53 [JF]
any need for fine tuning?
16:49:10 [JF]
if so, can we stablize language by next call?
16:49:15 [LynnH]
zakim, unmute me
16:49:15 [Zakim]
LynnH should no longer be muted
16:49:29 [JF]
Judy would also ask others not on this call as well
16:49:56 [LynnH]
zakim, mute me
16:49:56 [Zakim]
LynnH should now be muted
16:50:08 [JF]
RS: the question I have is: do we want to say "reinstate longdesc" or do we want to say we want a deprecation mechanism?
16:50:14 [oedipus]
q+ to suggest that subgroup email to public-html-a11y use the subject line [text]
16:50:52 [JF]
JB: so for example, should not breaking backward compat be a requirment?
16:51:20 [JF]
look at reqs, rather than implementation
16:51:32 [JF]
useful to have a high-level reqs document
16:51:35 [JF]
for review
16:52:04 [JF]
RS: being pragmatic - the need exists whether we use longdesc or other
16:52:18 [JF]
if they are going to remove it, industry needs time to adapt
16:52:33 [JF]
if we completely remove longdesc it is not attainable
16:52:45 [JF]
JB: this is something that we can discuss more
16:53:02 [JF]
may align with other practical feedback (weak objections, etc.)
16:53:19 [JF]
no clear evidence of evolving support
16:54:02 [oedipus]
q+ to ask if it would it help to add requirement 8/9? backwards-compatibility: A means of accessing content added by authors using the HTML4 attribute @longdesc
16:54:06 [JF]
RS: can cite gov legislation that if they remove something, we will have a mjaor problem
16:54:40 [JF]
JB: in preparing for next meeting - any objections to reviewing the requirements section - goal of consensus on tha section only
16:54:49 [oedipus]
ack mr
16:54:51 [oedipus]
ack oed
16:54:51 [Zakim]
oedipus, you wanted to suggest that subgroup email to public-html-a11y use the subject line [text] and to ask if it would it help to add requirement 8/9? backwards-compatibility: A
16:54:55 [Zakim]
... means of accessing content added by authors using the HTML4 attribute @longdesc
16:55:09 [JF]
GJR: when sending emails use [text]
16:55:28 [JF]
would it help to add another req for support of backward compat
16:55:48 [JF]
JB: surprised that it was not already there
16:56:04 [JF]
will be looking at the 3 rejection decisions, for patterns
16:56:16 [JF]
to understand who the chairs are informing on these issues
16:56:23 [JF]
16:56:42 [JF]
ie: external, and the rejection of regulatory issues
16:56:57 [JF]
most of the other request for additional info seems complete
16:57:02 [JF]
16:57:45 [oedipus]
JF: on poster issue rejected because not "spec-ready" text -- told them that was concentrating on need/requirement -- may need to tighten up language
16:57:54 [oedipus]
ack JF
16:58:34 [JF]
JB: next meeting - let's look at the requirements, and providing additional clarification
16:59:39 [oedipus]
JB: scribe volunteers for next few weeks?
16:59:57 [oedipus]
JB: can RS scribe next week?
17:00:15 [oedipus]
RS: can do in 2 weeks time
17:00:28 [oedipus]
GJR: will scribe next week
17:00:48 [Zakim]
17:00:53 [JF]
bye all
17:01:01 [Zakim]
17:01:36 [Zakim]
17:01:39 [Zakim]
17:01:43 [Zakim]
17:01:45 [Zakim]
17:01:47 [oedipus]
zakim, please part
17:01:47 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #text
17:01:47 [Zakim]
WAI_PF(Text)11:30AM has ended
17:01:49 [Zakim]
Attendees were John_Foliot, Judy, mranon, Steve_Faulkner, Gregory_Rosmaita, Rich, Janina_Sajka, +44.203.239.aaaa, LynnH
17:02:13 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate oedipus
17:03:08 [oedipus]
present- +44.203.239.aaaa,
17:03:26 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate oedipus
17:03:41 [oedipus]
regrets: Laura_Carlson
17:03:43 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate oedipus
17:04:54 [oedipus]
i/JF: one thing important is to look at what has already started to happen/scribenick: oedipus/
17:04:55 [laura]
laura has joined #text
17:04:57 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate oedipus
17:05:41 [oedipus]
i/RS: the thing I had the biggest issue with/scribenick: JF
17:05:44 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate oedipus
17:06:41 [oedipus]
i/JF: on poster issue rejected/scribenick: oedipus/
17:06:43 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate oedipus
17:12:01 [laura]
laura has joined #text
17:13:43 [RRSAgent]
I see 1 open action item saved in :
17:13:43 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: gregory add status to verbose descriptor requirements [1]
17:13:43 [RRSAgent]
recorded in