See also: IRC log
<MichaelC> scribe: janina
jb: Our longdesc cp and
accompanying formal objection did help put an expidited mtg
... Included, html chairs, W3C Director, Philippe, Judy, Janina, and team contacts
... Looked at issues going forward
... Also, W3C CEO in mtg
... Lack of progress of a11y issues in html was the primary concern for discussion
... As for results, strong view that LC should go forward for reasons of getting external review
... Regretably, W3C doesn't have a separate category for this kind of call
... Remaining a11y concerns will be flagged in the lc publication
... Also, we didn't want a11y issues disadvantaged by not getting timely review, so looked again at publishing updated WD when there's progress
... Not an absolute agreement on how that happens, but a shared concern that it happen
... Discussed getting clarifications before HTML surveys go out
... Acknowledgement that more timely response to recommendations is important
... the sometimes year long lag between TF recommendation and announced decision was acknowledged as disadvantageous to a11y
... Not ideal, but a better situation than before.
... Also, we're looking for additional resources to help
... Also, the LC publication, to clarify the actual status, will note that another last call may occur
... There will not be claim of feature completeness
... Purpose is to get docs out for review, but without illusions that this is at all complete
rs: I noted many outstanding a11y
issues in my vote
... Was process discussed? Editor signoff is a problem ongoing
jb: Three main discussion points
... 1.) Messaging; 2) Updated Pub; 3.) Process Improvements
... Janina and I flagged several process items to discuss; some we had to go into detail so didn't get to everything
... Most focus went on timing on decisions, ...
... Need for coordination discussions, noting that we had requested and been denied such
... Clarifications of issues before they survey, perhaps discussions with chairs before survey
... With respect to working with the editor, nothing specific sorted out
... There are things I want to look at in that, and I invite everyone to flag and help
rs: an example, in the case of
... we put in a cp; Ian countered; OK so far, though Ian always waits to last minute
... Chairs reviewed and reached a decision ...
<JF> (+1 to Rich's comment)
rs: Editor came back saying "he couldn't make those changes in good conscious." How is that allowed?
jb: That's exactly the kind of
thing I want to track much more carefully, though I don't want
to spend much time on specific examples just now
... Please send such to me, Michael, and Janina
... We would be happy to have a specific list of such things
... Two more things to flag ... Both relevant to our next steps
... Part of the rationale for LC is that external reviews might help with many things including a11y support. I challenged that because the feedback is not likely to be as technical as they tend to ask for
... Nevertheless, we need to encourage feedback, but ask for substantive feedback, e.g. use cases; technical responses
... Second, we need to make sure our cp's are strong and well formulated
... While this assessment may be heavily compromised by the extreme delay between recommendation and decision, this should nevertheless be a focus for us
jb: We may have the opportunity
for additional review and perhaps help on this
... Do we want to hold off to make our cps stronger?
jf: Curious of offers for additional help on preparing cp's. Specific names? Can we approach with current work?
jb: Can't give name now, though
have at least one name already, and will be chatting probably
Tuesday with them
... It was noted that there a number of large corporate W3C members who won't be able to use HTML 5 until a11y is properly addressed
... So, we may want to take a few weeks to scrub up our CP's, even once we've consensed, just to tighten them and allow for pre-consult
... Note: Chairs were strong that anything they offered to consult with us, would be generally available to others in the WG
... My view is that it would help all around
rs: What about not understanding how things work?
jb: We discussed how we shouldn't
need to guess what they understand, and don't about how a11y
works in html
... Tim spoke about the importance of relying on expertise in the W3C environment, etc
... Any more questions about this mtg in Bilbao?
jb: Want to check reactions on
... How do people feel on this? Do we want to avail of this?
<JF> Janina: I believe we are greatly under-resourced here, so yes technical expertise on writing these change proposals would be greatly appreciated
jb: Means perhaps additional stages for us
jf: So a question of timing, and
available time ...
... I know I have outstanding items,
... So if we have things ready for an editor, assuming these are also busy people
... How does that factor?
jb: One agendum is the timeline,
and I will propose we need to watch that carefully
... Don't have details at the moment
<JF> (From Steve F via email: Regrets my Internet connection has failed.
<JF> Sent from my iPhone)
jb: So, we might encourage Steve and Laura at this point on this, to position them optimally, want to know how people feel about that
jf: Several of our alt items have
been broken into separate items, yet it's a response to a
... So, is it a question of keeping them separate? Filing bugs and escalating to issues at this point?
jb: We've already agreed to send as separate items
jf: They're not being tracked that way ...
jb: Ah ...
... part of the problem may be that we don't have consensus about moving each piece forward
jf: which is why i suggest splitting them out
jb: Don't care how they're tracked, but they need to be tracked within the next few hours
mc: will help get bugzilla entries for alt
jb: anything else on this topic?
jf: If we get those logged, and a11ytf key word, an email to chairs ...
jb: They agreed to this immediately as they were already planning on this, and have emailed us checking whether they're list comports with ours
janina: If we do what we are allowed, bugzilla, then identify to the Chairs our issues in email, we've done our due dillegence
jb: We'll at list in email, if
... Any objection with my approaching Steve and Laura re additional review before moving cps forward?
rs: We have some text to strike, is that doable?
jb: I believe Laura is eager, we
had asked to freeze text during the past weeks, but I think
this can move
... We have this on the agenda
jb: Suggest for js and ms that
there be some people tasked to look at the TF consensus
process, to look for anything that might impact the ability of
TF to handle consensus better
... Note that the WG timeline is tight, lc itself is 10 weeks, with additional steps
... Please look at this and respond at TF level as needed. We need to look to meet the timeline
rs: See 'entering comments,' is that bugs?
jb: Don't know, but that's the
kind of question we need to satisfy
... what and when -- we need to be clear
... if we think the timeline won't work, we can challenge it and should, but we need to be ready to defend that
... Noting some dates are the wrong year ...
rs: We just did lc with aria, and many of our comments weren't necessarily "bugs."
jb: Should TF invite a Chair to take this up with us
<scribe> ACTION: Janina to request a TF session on LC timeline for questions and clarifications [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/05/23-text-minutes.html#action01]
jf: If we do a challenge, how quickly?
jb: Again, let's assign a few
people to study several process questions, lc timeline, tf
consensus, etc., should be priority
... that's not this subteam
rs: Notes he'll be away for two weeks
jb: Please forward questions
... Any volunteers for subteam
jb: Encourages people to check
... Appreciate participation we had on this
... Anyone have comments pending on longdesc cp?
<Judy_> judy hearing no additional comments -- and that we should encourage Laura to review and incorporate feedback from survey, and then bring it back to text-alternatives subgroup for re-consensus
<Judy_> janina: but not to leave open for any length of time
<Judy_> judy will be checking on time considerations under the new timeline from co-chairs
jb: There are several items
continuing in the agenda, before we go into the details
... Title inAlt, Steve has updated based on questions from Maciej
<JF> Steve's re-submission: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/notitlev2
jb: I believe we should encourage
that be reviewed and consensed by this Subteam
... We should then ask Steve if he thinks it should be reviewed here, and whether additional cp help would be helpful
... Believe this is more important than pushing for an immediate survey on this
see the above ...
<JF> JF: I am supposed to be taking Leif's emails, etc.. I have started a wiki page to make this into a Change Proposal, which I have not had a chance to do
<JF> JB: trying to figure out the consensus approach on this topic, wondering whether JF and Leif were on the same track
jf: Leif and I are pretty much in
... Now using generator string to do something that it wasn't designed for
... essentially provides an excuse to ignore alt
... Leif was going deeper than I thought was required, but think we're pretty much in agreement
jb: So no concern about consensus?
jf: Not at all
jb: Rich, you and Cynthia had
discussion on this, and agreed on some bugs, but some people
felt more than bugs needed. Is that correct?
... Can you update?
rs: We didn't want presentation
on the body tag
... Re aria presentation it'll
... agreement that redundant alt="" was ok
... agreed to let it go as it was
rs: question as to whether
validator should flag role=presentation but alt is
... Most content today is client generated, so validator doesn't buy us much
rs; Not essential that we put this into the validitor
rs: presentation plus null alt is redundant, but backward compatibility is supported that way
jb: But no reopen request?
rs: Yes, that's my view
rs: Can those bugs be filed
... Think we let it go as is
jb: So no bugs now
jb: Reviewing earlier items for Laura ...
jb: Specifically re longdesc feedback that came in
lc: Absolutely can reopen and move forward
jb: Needs to be a short
... Then stabilize again and return to TF to check consensus
lc: Can do by Thursday
jb: May make sens for this
... Would you be willing to avail of the additional process help even though is a well developed proposal, perhaps the best developed?
l;c: happy to take input
jb: Can discuss this with youf urther
lc: Who is the engineer?
jb: Not yet met with them, will
advise if I think it's a good match
... Chairs had said their plan was to survey longdesc as soon as the lc is published
lc: can be concurrent
jb: May make sense to wait a week or so to avoid proliferation of counter proposals, if possible
lc: sounds fine
jb: will ask them to NOT send a call now
<Laura> have to go now. bye
jf: Has been in discussion in
... Appear to have reached a solution that appears to meet all our reqs
... want aria and uawg to check
... there are multiple pieces
... based on aria-describedby; describing video and the static image separately
... possibly no ua today, but looks like should meet need
... I still have this logged as formal objection, but this may supercede
jb: you'll leave the fo in place?
jf: yes, no reason to pull at this time
jb: Does this belong under text? Or should go back to Media?
jf: Think it should stay with both
janina: we're covering new things that benefit from wider review
jb: looking forward to the day we can say: "look at all these new a11y things"
jf: do have a timeline
... want to make sure we stay in the timeline, as it's not going to be in lc
jb: Still side discussion going
on as to whether there is, oris not, "new" evidence, so that we
might speak as one voice
... We should know in a few weeks on this
... we'll need to check for consensus
jb: a fair amount of discussion in the survey on this -- the html spec pub survey
rs; Not essential that we put this into the validitorhttp://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/html5-last-call-poll/results
jb: believe we have consensus on
this, but getting to this issue has been a problem, looking for
people to help work on this?
... Perhaps Steve and Michael ... Others?
<LynnH_RNIB> I need to go now - bye
<richardschwerdtfe> regrets for the next 2 weeks
<richardschwerdtfe> Rich: regrets for the next two weeks
jb: Janina may be chairing next few meetings, and we'll look to a rotating scribe list?
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.136 of Date: 2011/05/12 12:01:43 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/Tim was strong in encouraging better use of available skills/Tim spoke about the importance of relying on expertise in the W3C environment/ Succeeded: s/seemed that/wondering whether/ Succeeded: s/but not full agreement/and agreed on some bugs, but some people felt more than bugs needed/ Succeeded: s/should be OK/should know/ Found Scribe: janina Inferring ScribeNick: janina Default Present: JF, +1.617.300.aaaa, Janina_Sajka, Michael_Cooper, Judy, Geoff_Freed, Marco_Ranon, Rich_Schwerdtfeger, LynnH_RNIB, Leonie_Watson, Laura_Carlson Present: JF +1.617.300.aaaa Janina_Sajka Michael_Cooper Judy Geoff_Freed Marco_Ranon Rich_Schwerdtfeger LynnH_RNIB Leonie_Watson Laura_Carlson WARNING: No meeting title found! You should specify the meeting title like this: <dbooth> Meeting: Weekly Baking Club Meeting Got date from IRC log name: 23 May 2011 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2011/05/23-text-minutes.html People with action items: janina WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]