23 May 2011

See also: IRC log


JF, +1.617.300.aaaa, Janina_Sajka, Michael_Cooper, Judy, Geoff_Freed, Marco_Ranon, Rich_Schwerdtfeger, LynnH_RNIB, Leonie_Watson, Laura_Carlson


<MichaelC> scribe: janina

Update on the expedited discussion regarding Accessibility, HTML5, and Last Call, and expect outcomes going forward

<Judy_> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011May/0504.html

jb: Our longdesc cp and accompanying formal objection did help put an expidited mtg together
... 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 canvas ...
... 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

<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

<JF> +q

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?

Revisit approach for drafting, discussing, polishing, and consensing text-alternative re-open requests and change proposals

jb: Want to check reactions on this ...
... 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

<JF> +q

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)

<JF> +q

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 single decision
... 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 not more
... Any objection with my approaching Steve and Laura re additional review before moving cps forward?

<JF> +1

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

<Judy_> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011May/0162.html

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."

<JF> +q

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

janina +self

jb: Encourages people to check wbs results
... 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

Status check and discussion schedule for all other text alternative re-open requests and change proposals

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

title & alt http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/notitle : checking additional changes

see the above ...

meta name=generator & alt: check progress, discussion

<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 sync ...
... 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

role=presentation & alt: check progress, discussion

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

<Laura> okay

rs: question as to whether validator should flag role=presentation but alt is non-null
... 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


<JF> +1

rs: Can those bugs be filed soon?
... Think we let it go as is

jb: So no bugs now

rs: Correct

jb: Reviewing earlier items for Laura ...

<Judy> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/44061/20110519_longdesc/results

jb: Specifically re longdesc feedback that came in

lc: Absolutely can reopen and move forward

jb: Needs to be a short time
... Then stabilize again and return to TF to check consensus

lc: Can do by Thursday

jb: May make sens for this meeting next
... 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

poster-alt: check new approach, discussion

jf: Has been in discussion in Media
... 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 question,
... want to make sure we stay in the timeline, as it's not going to be in lc

figcaption & alt: check new information, discussion

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

location of normative guidance on alt: needs write-up

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?

janina +1

<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?

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] 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]
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.136 (CVS log)
$Date: 2011/05/23 17:02:13 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
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]