14:50:43 RRSAgent has joined #text 14:50:43 logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/04/18-text-irc 14:52:22 zakim, this will be WAI_PF(Text) 14:52:22 ok, judy; I see WAI_PF(Text)11:30AM scheduled to start in 38 minutes 14:52:30 chair: Judy 14:53:20 agenda+ Identify Scribe (list for PFWG generally: http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/index.php?title=Scribe_List ) 14:53:20 agenda+ Organizing Our Work 14:53:20 agenda+ Recurring rationales in rejected proposals on text alternatives, including: longdesc: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Aug/0112.html ; table-summary: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0091.html ; poster-alt: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Mar/0690.html 14:53:20 agenda+ Information requested and/or open questions 14:53:22 agenda+ Discussions and/or actions needed to progress the issues; confirm who/when 14:53:23 agenda+ Other business? 14:53:26 agenda+ Identify Scribe for next call; adjourn 14:58:25 oedipus has joined #text 14:59:14 oedipus has changed the topic to: HTML-A11Y Text Subteam on 18 April at 15:30Z for 90 minutes - agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Apr/0144.html (oedipus) 15:12:20 mranon has joined #text 15:25:27 JF has joined #text 15:27:28 trackbot, start meeting 15:28:08 Grr... still learning this stuff - command? 15:28:16 trackbot, please join 15:28:37 trackbot, start meeting 15:29:37 richardschwerdtfe has joined #text 15:29:52 http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/32212/201105_ftf/ 15:30:00 WAI_PF(Text)11:30AM has now started 15:30:07 +John_Foliot 15:30:16 zakim, code? 15:30:16 the conference code is 2119 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.26.46.79.03 tel:+44.203.318.0479), judy 15:30:25 +Judy 15:30:42 +??P7 15:30:55 LynnH has joined #text 15:31:10 +??P0 15:31:25 zakim, ??P0 is me 15:31:25 +mranon; got it 15:31:29 zakim, P7 is Steve_Faulkner 15:31:29 sorry, judy, I do not recognize a party named 'P7' 15:31:32 +??P5 15:31:33 janina has joined #text 15:31:36 zakim, ??P7 is Steve_Faulkner 15:31:36 +Steve_Faulkner; got it 15:31:59 +Gregory_Rosmaita 15:32:17 zakim, ??P0 is Marco_Ranon 15:32:17 I already had ??P0 as mranon, judy 15:32:26 +Rich 15:32:48 zakim, mute me 15:32:48 mranon should now be muted 15:32:54 agenda+ Identify Scribe (list for PFWG generally: 15:32:56 http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/index.php?title=Scribe_List ) 15:32:57 agenda+ Organizing Our Work 15:32:59 zakim, ??P5 is Janina_Sajka 15:32:59 +Janina_Sajka; got it 15:32:59 agenda+ Recurring rationales in rejected proposals on text 15:33:00 alternatives, including: longdesc: 15:33:02 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Aug/0112.html ; 15:33:03 table-summary: 15:33:05 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0091.html ; 15:33:07 poster-alt: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Mar/0690.html 15:33:08 agenda+ Information requested and/or open questions Discussions and/or 15:33:10 agenda+ actions needed to progress the issues; 15:33:11 confirm who/when 15:33:13 agenda+ Other business? 15:33:14 agenda+ Identify Scribe for next call; adjourn 15:33:59 zakim, drop agendum 8 15:33:59 agendum 8, Identify Scribe (list for PFWG generally:, dropped 15:34:08 + +44.203.239.aaaa 15:34:10 zakim, drop agendum 9 15:34:10 agendum 9, Organizing Our Work, dropped 15:34:33 zakim, drop agendum 10 15:34:33 agendum 10, Recurring rationales in rejected proposals on text, dropped 15:34:37 zakim, drop agendum 11 15:34:37 agendum 11, Information requested and/or open questions Discussions and/or, dropped 15:34:42 zakim, drop agendum 12 15:34:42 agendum 12, actions needed to progress the issues;, dropped 15:34:48 zakim, drop agendum 13 15:34:48 agendum 13, Other business?, dropped 15:34:53 zakim, drop agendum 14 15:34:53 agendum 14, Identify Scribe for next call; adjourn, dropped 15:35:06 zaxim, item 1 15:35:13 zakim, umute me 15:35:13 I don't understand 'umute me', mranon 15:35:16 zakim, item 1 15:35:16 I don't understand 'item 1', JF 15:35:24 zakim, unmute me 15:35:24 mranon should no longer be muted 15:35:27 zakim, agendum 1 15:35:27 I don't understand 'agendum 1', JF 15:35:44 zakim, 44.203.239.aaaa is Lynn Holdsworth 15:35:44 I don't understand '44.203.239.aaaa is Lynn Holdsworth', judy 15:35:45 zakim, mute me 15:35:46 sorry, LynnH, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you 15:35:50 zakim, next item 15:35:50 agendum 1. "Identify Scribe (list for PFWG generally: http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/index.php?title=Scribe_List )" taken up [from judy] 15:35:58 scribe: jf 15:36:02 zakim, LynnH is Lynn Holdsworth 15:36:02 I don't understand 'LynnH is Lynn Holdsworth', oedipus 15:36:11 zakim, next item 15:36:11 agendum 1 was just opened, JF 15:36:18 zakim, Lynn Holdsworth is LynnH 15:36:18 I don't understand 'Lynn Holdsworth is LynnH', oedipus 15:36:36 zakim, agenda tem 2 15:36:36 I don't understand 'agenda tem 2', JF 15:37:12 zakim, unmute me 15:37:12 sorry, LynnH, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you 15:37:23 i/MK: moved my actions to 25th/scribenick: oedipus/ 15:37:39 i/action-762?/scribenick: mattking/ 15:37:45 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/04/18-text-minutes.html oedipus 15:38:38 zakim, mute me 15:38:38 sorry, LynnH, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you 15:39:07 As JF struggles with zakim commands, attendees round-robin introductions 15:39:27 close agendum 15:39:32 zakim, close agendum 15:39:32 I don't understand 'close agendum', JF 15:39:46 zakim, next agendum 15:39:46 agendum 2. "Organizing Our Work" taken up [from judy] 15:40:14 JB: we may have others join the call today as scheduling permits 15:41:08 JB: review of goals of this sub-team 15:41:26 concerns about longdesc, table summary, poster-alt 15:42:13 we will look at each of these decisions and have discussions where useful, analyze , offer clarifications, etc. 15:42:52 if that is not successful, then sub-group may look at FO, possibly coupled with expedited appeals to the director 15:43:12 Judy can offer details and background on process options if required 15:43:26 hopes that this is not the main focus of this group howeer 15:44:28 JB: any further comments, questions or scope of this sub-group 15:44:52 JS: nothing to add, this was a good summary 15:45:04 Stevef has joined #text 15:47:11 JF: logged FO against chairs' poster decision 15:48:16 MY FO for Poster-alt: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Mar/0697.html 15:48:20 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Mar/0697.html 15:49:25 name of group: text alternatives sub-group - any objections? 15:49:56 JB: with no objections, that's the name of the group 15:50:29 JB: organization: between the 3 different items to date, there seems to be some similarities across the 3 15:50:57 we have seen a lot of on-line discussion on these topics as well 15:51:26 hope to identify any questions or differences of opinion, etc. 15:51:40 hope that we can clarify and resolve quickly 15:52:10 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 zakim, next agendum 15:52:35 agendum 3. "Recurring rationales in rejected proposals on text alternatives, including: longdesc: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Aug/0112.html ; table-summary: 15:52:42 ... http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0091.html ; poster-alt: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Mar/0690.html" taken up [from judy] 15:53:05 JB: who has read all 3 of these in detail 15:53:27 GJR has 15:53:45 SF: have read them, looking for the recurring similarities, don't actually see anything 15:54:25 JB: items such as low usage, hidden data, etc. 15:54:39 SF: these were countered as weak arguments 15:55:03 JB: items such s uncontested arguments 15:55:46 http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Verbose_desc_reqs 15:55:46 SF: the chairs looked at various items, and rejected many items as weak arguments 15:56:12 JB: low usage as a weak argument was a concern 15:56:23 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 ...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 ...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 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/restore4a11y 15:56:42 low frequency argument is seen as damaging to accessibility 15:57:08 reviewing the different rejections, one of the other issues was concerns about hidden meta-data 15:57:14 link-rot, etc. 15:58:08 longdesc, table summary, etc. may evolve, move to ARIA as a stronger mechanism 15:58:19 (JF =1 to Judy) 15:58:34 s/=1/+1 15:58:58 JB: use this group to clarify and get stronger consensus on these topics 15:59:08 +q 15:59:23 q? 15:59:25 q+ 16:00:17 q+ 16:01:08 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 ...think that ARIA as it evolved was for dynamic web content (JS and widgets, roles, states and properties) 16:01:13 ack JF 16:01:21 ack Steve 16:01:28 SF: 16:01:36 I have a different opinion to John 16:01:50 re: ghettoiazation and step backward 16:02:14 these are very specific solutions to specific problems, prefer to see more generic solutions to these problems 16:02:42 some say that it might be better to have an attibute that has greater reach - could be used with canvas etc. 16:02:55 hving a more generic method makes it more extensibile 16:03:27 RS: bridging technology argument was to appease the HTML WG 16:03:45 honestly, to just sprinkle some semantics on something to make it accessible is a good thing 16:04:01 adds declarations easily 16:04:20 in native OS, this is very complicated 16:04:34 with ARIA, set an attribute, and the browser does all the heavy lifting 16:04:47 now we can use ARIA to support SVG, and standard controls 16:04:49 q+ to ask about ARIA for those not using AT 16:04:56 ack rich 16:05:11 there remains a lot of work on the standard controls 16:05:40 the problem I now have is that the HTML5 implementation for sthings like summary is inconsistant across browsers 16:06:09 there are multiple things that authors need to do, and when we move to other languages it does it differently 16:06:25 having a consistant way of doing this across many languages is a positive thing 16:06:39 now that ARIA is part of the HTML5 spec, we have som win 16:06:55 q? 16:07:02 it was designed to be a cross-cutting solution for multiple languges 16:07:23 q+ 16:07:32 what does aria-label mean for someone not using AT? 16:07:59 positive to have have something across multiple OSes and browsers 16:08:34 robust ARIA would even make WCAG2 easier 16:08:51 JB: thanks for the input to date from JF, SF, RS 16:09:14 would like to pull out some requirements 16:09:22 zakim, who's making noise? 16:09:27 -Rich 16:09:33 judy, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Gregory_Rosmaita (76%), Rich (5%) 16:09:35 I just lost my phone 16:09:37 sorry 16:09:40 be right back 16:09:46 GJR: appreciate the therory, but what is the impact on users not using AT? 16:09:48 apologies I have to go 16:10:12 -Steve_Faulkner 16:10:22 (waiting for RS to re-join us) 16:10:44 q+ 16:10:46 GJR: it is very appealing to have one common syntax 16:11:02 +Rich 16:11:22 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 we need to re-examine some of the basic assumptions of ARIA 16:11:47 RS: does summary actually show up? 16:12:32 RS: works with AT. 16:12:56 GJR: how does ARIA labeledby work for users who are not using AT? 16:13:19 RS: if you have a table with @summary, what does a sighted user see? 16:13:24 +Q 16:13:30 JB: 16:13:31 ack oe 16:13:31 oedipus, you wanted to ask about ARIA for those not using AT 16:13:57 wants to check something here. Is revisiting ARIA something that can be done without re-opening ARIA 16:14:08 as advisory data - styling, etc. 16:14:16 ack jud 16:14:49 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 hope that this is not the main factor in revisiting 16:15:18 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 if better a11y is achieved by restoring these features, we should go that way 16:15:39 however if a11y can be met better by using ARIA, then that is important info as well 16:15:47 hears different points of view 16:15:57 would be good to prove this in fact 16:16:24 not eager to take a long detour, but curious to check to see how much agreement there might be] 16:16:32 ie: cross UA support, etc. 16:16:40 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 testing potential agreement on a simple set of requirements: 16:17:25 J how easily could we get cross UA support of ARIA 16:17:49 RS: we just positioned ARIA as a bridging technology - everything will be handled by the host language 16:18:00 we did not intend that/d o that 16:18:20 we didn't use ARIA to apease the WG 16:18:34 JB: not a 'diss' on ARIA 16:19:14 JB: one of the things I am wondering is I hear people express different opinions and map against requirements 16:19:32 hear concerns about cross UA support from GJR and JF 16:19:42 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 second item is that implementationn is important 16:20:46 other item of concern is consistancy in implementation 16:20:56 one requirement to not break backward compat 16:21:11 there is a body of @longdesc content in existance already 16:21:13 doesn't HTML5 have a mandate about backwards compatibility -- will check 16:21:18 this may introduce conerns 16:21:37 would it be useful to state some of this as shared views of requirements? 16:21:42 q? 16:21:53 proposed requirements for verbose descriptor mechanisms: http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Verbose_desc_reqs 16:21:59 JS: glad to see us talking about not breaking backward compat 16:22:00 ack ja 16:22:22 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 we need a programaticaly specific means to select the larger data, and not always be forced it 16:23:02 strong plus 1 on ARIA-as-filtering device utility 16:23:13 so if is all in the same kind of element (attribute) it may not be useful 16:23:44 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 s/I like that ARIA is mapping/JS: I like that ARIA is mapping/ 16:24:13 q+ 16:24:16 q? 16:24:18 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/04/18-text-minutes.html oedipus 16:24:20 so when looking at items such as table summary, the weaker objection says use ARIA - fine but not yet implelemented 16:24:39 seems short sighted to simply suggest that ARIA is ready for replacement 16:24:40 q+ 16:24:50 (+1 to Janina re: obsolencence) 16:24:54 rrsagent, make logs public 16:24:59 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/04/18-text-minutes.html oedipus 16:25:02 can we improve longdesc and summary? yes 16:25:37 underlying principle is that we not discard historical attributes, relyability of our work 16:25:52 keep the baseline we have already established - we have others that expect us to do so 16:26:07 we are not yet there on understaning how ARIA can solve all these issues 16:26:30 JB: will go through the queue 16:27:04 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 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 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 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 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 RS: the thing I had the biggest issue with is that I agree that dumping @longdesc completely is a problem 16:29:39 we need a deprecation strategy 16:29:57 to give us a chance to get WCAG 2, EOWG to get ducks in order 16:30:05 but cold-turkey dumping is busted 16:30:14 meeting: Text Alternatives Subgroup of HTML Accessibility Task Force 16:30:23 JB: anybody disagree with rich's point? (none) 16:30:39 example of something that hope to communicate in an organized way 16:30:44 agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Apr/0144.html 16:30:52 we worked hard to make these points 16:31:06 can we capture that as a resoultion for this group? 16:31:44 touching on the history of these features/attributes as part of our discussion 16:31:48 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/04/18-text-minutes.html oedipus 16:31:59 proposed requirements for verbose descriptor mechanisms: http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Verbose_desc_reqs 16:32:01 http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Verbose_desc_reqs#Requirements 16:32:02 can we focus on link that GJR added re: requirements 16:32:34 one question is: how much consensus has this page had in any of the TF meetings? 16:32:53 GJR: this was a direct reaction to the chairs announcement to remove @longdesc 16:33:02 collect requirements in an agnostic manner 16:33:14 purposefully written to not be bound to a specific solution 16:33:39 JS: re- process. this was voted out by the PFWG as a recommendation 16:34:00 JB: can we look at this for a few minutes 16:34:08 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 one of the things that stands out to me is undre progrmaitically determinable 16:34:43 seems to be leaving out the specific technologies 16:35:00 http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Verbose_desc_reqs#Programmatically_Determinable 16:35:05 the requirement for cross UA reqs does not stand out 16:35:21 JB: are the other things that may be missing 16:35:39 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 ...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 ...(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 q? 16:35:45 ...the 'longdesc' resource of the former must be different than the mechanism for accessing the href resource of the latter." 16:36:05 JS: on the progrmatically determinable - if there is no means to do so, it is always there as text 16:36:18 ack JF 16:36:42 ack 16:36:43 ack Ri 16:36:48 ack ju 16:37:04 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 JB: are people on the call familiar with this document 16:37:23 is this the right group to be catching this doc in the TF? 16:37:43 q+ 16:37:53 JS: likely yes. PF felt it could likely use some wordsmithing, but get it out for discussion 16:38:00 soon rather than later 16:38:38 action: gregory add status to verbose descriptor requirements 16:38:56 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 ...UA's universal link activation action/ 16:39:08 JB: from the history, seems that mostly GJR and laura did the bulk of authoring 16:39:24 http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Verbose_desc_reqs#Requirements 16:39:25 the specific sets of requirements - there are 8 of them 16:39:38 http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Verbose_desc_reqs#Requirements 16:40:20 reviewing the 8 reqs seeking consensus 16:40:57 GJR, one idea is to put up another document with these 8 as an ordered list, with more prose 16:41:42 zakim, unmute me 16:41:42 sorry, LynnH, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you 16:41:44 zakim, who's here? 16:41:44 On the phone I see John_Foliot, Judy, mranon, Janina_Sajka, Gregory_Rosmaita, +44.203.239.aaaa, Rich 16:41:47 On IRC I see Stevef, janina, LynnH, richardschwerdtfe, JF, mranon, oedipus, RRSAgent, Zakim, judy 16:41:58 JB: checking around the call to see if there is consensus on these points 16:42:09 zakim, aaaa is LynnH 16:42:09 +LynnH; got it 16:42:18 LH: still reading up on the background, not comfortable to comment 16:42:31 zakim, mute me 16:42:31 LynnH should now be muted 16:42:59 MR: actually also contributed to the initial document that Laura started. Happy with this document however 16:43:44 -mranon 16:44:31 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 does this include not breaking forward/backward compat 16:45:11 http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Verbose_desc_reqs#Satisfying_These_Requirements_for_HTML5 16:45:23 GJR: concern to not muddy the issue - this is mentioned in the how to satisfy 16:45:38 JB: believes that not breaking backward compat is fundemental 16:46:53 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 JS: backward compat should be a higher level concept 16:47:43 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 advantages and disadvantages of solutions for verbose description requirements contained in detail in http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Verbose_desc_reqs#Satisfying_These_Requirements_for_HTML5 16:48:12 zakim, who's here? 16:48:12 On the phone I see John_Foliot, Judy, Janina_Sajka, Gregory_Rosmaita, LynnH (muted), Rich 16:48:15 On IRC I see Stevef, janina, LynnH, richardschwerdtfe, JF, oedipus, RRSAgent, Zakim, judy 16:48:23 JS: the absence of a means to properly identify the image violates a fundemental req 16:48:47 JB: can we look at the requirments section of the document with a fresh look in light of 3 rejected features 16:48:53 any need for fine tuning? 16:49:10 if so, can we stablize language by next call? 16:49:15 zakim, unmute me 16:49:15 LynnH should no longer be muted 16:49:29 Judy would also ask others not on this call as well 16:49:56 zakim, mute me 16:49:56 LynnH should now be muted 16:50:08 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 q+ to suggest that subgroup email to public-html-a11y use the subject line [text] 16:50:52 JB: so for example, should not breaking backward compat be a requirment? 16:51:20 look at reqs, rather than implementation 16:51:32 useful to have a high-level reqs document 16:51:35 for review 16:52:04 RS: being pragmatic - the need exists whether we use longdesc or other 16:52:18 if they are going to remove it, industry needs time to adapt 16:52:33 if we completely remove longdesc it is not attainable 16:52:45 JB: this is something that we can discuss more 16:53:02 may align with other practical feedback (weak objections, etc.) 16:53:19 no clear evidence of evolving support 16:54:02 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 RS: can cite gov legislation that if they remove something, we will have a mjaor problem 16:54:40 JB: in preparing for next meeting - any objections to reviewing the requirements section - goal of consensus on tha section only 16:54:49 ack mr 16:54:51 ack oed 16:54:51 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 ... means of accessing content added by authors using the HTML4 attribute @longdesc 16:55:09 GJR: when sending emails use [text] 16:55:28 would it help to add another req for support of backward compat 16:55:48 JB: surprised that it was not already there 16:56:04 will be looking at the 3 rejection decisions, for patterns 16:56:16 to understand who the chairs are informing on these issues 16:56:23 s/who/how 16:56:42 ie: external, and the rejection of regulatory issues 16:56:57 most of the other request for additional info seems complete 16:57:02 +q 16:57:45 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 ack JF 16:58:34 JB: next meeting - let's look at the requirements, and providing additional clarification 16:59:39 JB: scribe volunteers for next few weeks? 16:59:57 JB: can RS scribe next week? 17:00:15 RS: can do in 2 weeks time 17:00:28 GJR: will scribe next week 17:00:48 -Rich 17:00:53 bye all 17:01:01 -John_Foliot 17:01:36 -Gregory_Rosmaita 17:01:39 -Janina_Sajka 17:01:43 -Judy 17:01:45 -LynnH 17:01:47 zakim, please part 17:01:47 Zakim has left #text 17:01:47 WAI_PF(Text)11:30AM has ended 17:01:49 Attendees were John_Foliot, Judy, mranon, Steve_Faulkner, Gregory_Rosmaita, Rich, Janina_Sajka, +44.203.239.aaaa, LynnH 17:02:13 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/04/18-text-minutes.html oedipus 17:03:08 present- +44.203.239.aaaa, 17:03:26 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/04/18-text-minutes.html oedipus 17:03:41 regrets: Laura_Carlson 17:03:43 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/04/18-text-minutes.html oedipus 17:04:54 i/JF: one thing important is to look at what has already started to happen/scribenick: oedipus/ 17:04:55 laura has joined #text 17:04:57 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/04/18-text-minutes.html oedipus 17:05:41 i/RS: the thing I had the biggest issue with/scribenick: JF 17:05:44 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/04/18-text-minutes.html oedipus 17:06:41 i/JF: on poster issue rejected/scribenick: oedipus/ 17:06:43 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/04/18-text-minutes.html oedipus 17:12:01 laura has joined #text 17:13:43 I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2011/04/18-text-actions.rdf : 17:13:43 ACTION: gregory add status to verbose descriptor requirements [1] 17:13:43 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/04/18-text-irc#T16-38-38