See also: IRC log
<scribe> Scribe: JF
JB: Asking if there are any action items report this week?
else will likely re-visit items this week
JB: metagenerator issue
there are some people on this call to discuss
JF: Lief had requested the issue to be re-opened, and has submitted a CP to the Chairs
<paulc_> Look at the second item in the table.
JB: looking for a link to Leif's CP
PC: Chairs considering this item under development
JB: Leif has submitted a draft for a Change Proposal
PC: surprised that the Chairs do not have this on their action list
is investigating and will follow up
JB: is what Leif submitted sufficient for re-opening the issue?
PC: Not sure, needs to coordinate with other Chairs
JB: if we have not supplied enough information, could we be advised so that this team can supply that?
unclear if the right information is there to re-open the request
JB: if it also seems that if there is sufficient info to re-open, it seems we should have another round of ccordination with leif
not sure when actions get "activiated" by Chairs (Q to PC)
PC: will check to see what other chairs remember, to see what the chairs said
JB: is there anything else to discuss here?
If we hear back from chairs that they are ready to consider who might be interested to take a second look?
anyone besides John prepared to do a review? don't believe we have a consensus report from this sub-group
with next week's Monday holiday, pushes this to 2 weeks out
JS: I think we were waiting for cleaned up language, but will review
JB: checking if anyone else can volunteer to look at language
LW: will sign up for that, but coming to issue new
JB: wait to see what PC has to
say, and then we can go from there
... there are 2 counter proposals that came in late last week
1 from Jonas the other from Matthew
asking PC what the process of handling this now
PC: preference would be to have some discussion on the List to discuss the merits before the survey
<paulc_> The chairs are NOT going to survey the longdesc alternate proposals right away.
<paulc_> We would recommend discuss on the firstname.lastname@example.org email list.
<paulc_> So I would suggest that the TF might either do that or analyze the counter proposals and then provide feedback.
JB: it appears we need to do both
starting with analysis of counter proposals
<paulc_> For example think of what you would say about the counter proposals in a survey and provide that feedback on the email list ASAP.
we had some discussion prior to Jonas' submission
around some of the issues around his approach
has anyone had an opportunity to review and is there anything new we did not anticipate
JB: w.r.t. Jonas' proposal, is there much difference between what we expected, versus what is submitted
<judy> jf: looking at jonas' proposal, seems mostly what we anticipated, 2 key things unaddressed: 1) consumption on demand, y/n; and 2) aria describedby doesn't pass through... not a focusable item
JB: any other coments?
<paulc_> How did he respond to the first (comsumption onf demand) item?
the first one has been raised as a question on the public list last week, bu tthe second one has not come up prior to last thursday
JB: when the concerns were raised, what was Jonas' response - he didn't believe what the evidence was?
JS: he did not respond right away - he did respond but Matt had jumped in earlier
it was fairly late - almost just before he submitted his proposal
JB with encouragement from the Chairs, hopefully we will get more discussion on this
JB: w.r.t. the second issue, can Rich rais thta on the main list
<paulc_> Can you give me the link to the thread on the public list?
RS: what the issue is - what the user agents do is supply a description, basicly a string
however they should be able to
<paulc_> Chairs "plan" was to encourage discussion on longdesc on the list.
RS: if the user agent follows the relationship, and it takes it to a section of the page, then html-rich content should be active
Rich reviewing the API mappings
<janina> Here's the URI for head of thread of the opening discussion with Jonas as requested from this group:
If the text is visible on screen, then it preserves the html-richness
but if it is off-screen then it becomes flat text
<paulc_> Is this limitation identified in the message 0204.html on the public list?
JF: that is the issue
<janina> No, not this issue
RS: If you want this text to be rich, you need to be able to navigate
<paulc_> Jonas's reply to 0204.html is in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Jun/0272.html
JF's response to Jonas' email (noted by Paul above): http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Jun/0273.html
PC: Just posted Jonas' reply of June 20th - saying that he didn't respond is misleading - he did respond
JB: Sems there may be an opportunity to follow up with Jonas thoughtfully and constructivelyq+
JB: are people under the impression that further disucssion will not go any further?
PC: if you look at Jonas' change it seems that the input is being taken in
can't say for sure, but it is possible
<paulc_> Is one possibility now that Jonas has supplied his CP is to re-state the items from janina's orginal email + items mentioned today in response to the CP which arrived on Sat.
JB: want to make sure we are not just doing an exercise, but keep hearing that 2 main requirements are not being address, and very little possibility to address thm in Jonas' proposal
ideally focus on those, and not other issues
does anyone disagree?
<paulc_> Respond to his CP with the old + new points as required.
<paulc_> No cell coverage
JB: concern is that they address the edges but no the core
<paulc_> "at the lake"
JB: so JF can take a look and respond
<paulc_> I will report to the Chairs that the TF/sub-team wants time to engage here.
asking Paul given the tentative plan to ask for further discussion, andy idea of time-line?
<paulc_> We are meeting later today and I will give you written feedback/
JB: want's to discuss the Zero Change proposal
have reviewed it briefly and question some of the assertions
not sure what is gained in this proposal, given the immense amount of work done particularly by laura in her proposal, that are supported by the task force
JB: am puzzling over what would
be gained by talking this over, outside of apparently we need
... there are a few questions I would want to follow up with with Paul and Janina later today
prior to chairs call
it seems it would be challenging to review a lot of mis-information
there are 3 different questions: interacting whith Jonas to see if there is some distance that can be closed,
we could go a different direction and ask that the Chairs just call the question
how much support does Jonas have?
JB: we likely need to manage discussion here
JS: I think we are confusing time-lines here
and with more discussion we may be able to get Jonas to back down, but the Matt's proposal is likely all religious
JB: there is Jonas' proposal, there is matt's proposal, and there is laura's proposal
given that we have a bit of time and I want to re-check on
laura's proposal might still have some areas that need re-tweaking - if we have extra time we should spend it there
laura has indicated that she is open to such
w.r.t. the description of ARIA
JB: not hearing that continued discussion is not useful
JB: on figcaption, there are parts of a Change Proposal being gathered up
Pretty sure that Geoff Freed can assist
but the other piece is writing up a description of how a warning would work
the heuristic measure that if figcaption exceeds X number of characters...
however writing up the description of how that would work
JS: think it is a fairly simple issue
JB: takes that as a volunteer action from Janina
that makes Judy, Geoff and Janina
this is assigned to Josh and katie
neither are on calls
JS: Katie may be off line for a few days due to health issues
Josh not coming up with more new evidence
<judy> JF: might be something coming up on table summary
JS: Can we maybe get longdesc to apply to tables?
JB: w.r.t. table summary, I believed we had a clear rationale for re-opening
JS: we disagree with the decision that it wasn't being used
we discussed enhanced alternatives, including heuristics
JB: 2 very different tasks. Better elaborate the use-cases, and the second is to improve the mechanisms
katie was looking at the second part,correct?
JS: Katie is new to this discussion
it was Wendy Chisholm who looked at this a year ago
JB: who would be good at writing up use-case for this?
JS: Gregory had suggested to move this to an element
JB: re: the use-case
if @summary was rejected because it was deemed un-necessary, then a new way of doing this won't change things
wondering if Leonie might help define the use-cases for that
for why it is needed
<janina> Chairs Table Summary decision at:
JB: willing to follow up with
... suggestions for next steps?
... need some help for mechanisms
Lynn: could help with use-cases
JB: consider yourself included
<richardschwerdtfe> I have to drop folks
I would like to present new info regarding @summary. And hope for your evaluation of whether this - provided I submit a change proposal - could be enough to have the case reopened. The Decision spoke about the ARIA momentum. But actual tests shows that it takes time. As an example, the Textile editor added support for @summary only the autumn 2010. 
REVISITING REASON - NEW USECASE:
For @longdesc, then one of the arguments are time based: *currently* ARIA does not work. And based on new data (see below), the same argument can be used about @aria-* for <table> too. Hence, a time based use case - time is needed to properly depreacte @summary.
A time based argument can also be made when it comes to authoring tools. I believe none of the browser based WYSIWYG editors support aria attributes. Currently, at least one CMS tool has removed one instance of @summary in order to be HTMl5 compliant, but did not in the same go replace it with anything else. 
REVISITING REASON - NEW FINDINGS:
When running some ATs through a test page , I found that aria-label, aria-labelledby and aria-describedby for non-void elements are not read by VoiceOver and Jaws. (Or, I guess more accurately: they only support these attributes for elements which have role=img.) With regard to NVDA, then it varies: it does not use these aria attributes for the table element when used with IE. But when...
scribe: used with Firefox 5, then it seems to read them. (Note: Fore IE, then I have only access to IE8.)
In contrast, the support for @summary is much better - supported by nearly all ATs. 
REASONS TO REVISIT MENTIONED IN THE DECISION:
* @summary would be useful in addition to aria-describedby due to the lacking support for aria-describedby. (See NEW FINDINGS below.) @summary is not relevant for <IMG> because AT have much better support for aria-describedby on the IMG element than they have on the TABLE element. I suppose even canvas may have good aria support due to the fact that it often is used for non-texts and and is...
scribe: generally known to be A11Y challenged.
* Identification of specific operational problems with the aria-describedby attribute that make it not able to be programmatically determined or suitable for use as a table summary: Though only one AT currently implements it , the caption should be read before the summary/description, since the caption is the name and the name should be presented before the description. However, generally, if a
ria-describedby is attached to an element, then whatever it points to will be read before the content of the element itself is read.
Therefore, AT needs to special case <table> (and <figure>) in order to read their captions before the description.
* Tool vendors vs @summary vs @aria-describedby
JB: is it possible to have something in 2 weeks?
<judy> judy: can there be a draft proposal on table summary in 2 weeks?
Lynn: will try to do this
JS: will do introductions
JB: a few follow ups coming on
the longdesc proposals
... Michael any progress on location of alt guidance?
... will presume that people will not be available next week (July 4th)
next meeting will be in 2 weeks then
next week's scribe will be rich
<Laura> Have to go. Need to help a student.
JB: reviewing to-do's
JB; wrapping up call
<janina> scribenic: janina
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/se/we/ Succeeded: s/done/done particularly by laura in her proposal, that are supported by the task force/ Succeeded: s/a different question/a different direction/ Succeeded: s/ope/open/ Succeeded: s/cribe/scribe/ No ScribeNick specified. Guessing ScribeNick: jfoliot Found Scribe: JF Default Present: Judy, John_Foliot, Janina, paulc, Michael_Cooper, Lynn_Holdsworth, Leonie, Rich_Schwerdtfeger, Laura_Carlson Present: Judy John_Foliot Janina paulc Michael_Cooper Lynn_Holdsworth Leonie Rich_Schwerdtfeger Laura_Carlson WARNING: No meeting title found! You should specify the meeting title like this: <dbooth> Meeting: Weekly Baking Club Meeting WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth Got date from IRC log name: 27 Jun 2011 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2011/06/27-text-minutes.html People with action items: WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]