See also: IRC log
<Joshue> scribe: Joshue
<JF> scribe: JF
<Joshue> Josh's CP http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Category:Table_Summary
JB: note that Laura C posted some additional info w.r.t. the @summary response
JO: not yet had a chance to review, but it is new data/info
knowing laura it is likely very good stuff, and worth adding, but need to read through it quickly
JB: can we take a quick skim and review Laura's additional info
[taking a minute to read the email]
<Joshue> Lynn: We were looking for use cases but couldn't find any
LH: Both Leonie and I looked for use cases and were unable to come up with any
<Joshue> JS: Laura does point out that there are use case
JS: Just wish to say that I can appreciate how they may have not succeeded with that, but Laura notes that there are use-cases already in the proposal
<Joshue> JS: They need to be up front
JS: the chairs sometimes don't "get it", and having the use-cases up front provides the 'schooling' to understand the issue
JO: there ae re use-cases. It is tricky and a bit difficult, we are reiterating the same thing
Laura's points are correct,, with out use-cases and justification are key
JO: Lief has provided excellent data on where support is missing
<Joshue> I'm going to add Leif to the wiki http://malform.no/testing/html5/table+aria.html
JO: happy to hand this to Laura to re-work, or if Laura could submit a second proposal...
JB: if Joshue could take a second pass, it would retain some consistency
<Judy> ACTION: Josh update the table summary proposal to incorporate Laura's input, and Leif's examples [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/08/22-text-minutes.html#action01]
<Joshue> JF: Laura points to Vlad blog, I would rather not include that link. It is negative towards ARIA
<Joshue> JOC: Noted
<Joshue> JF: The gist is that ARIA is really complicated etc, and it is the wrong message.
JF notes that the Vlad Alexander blog proposal is negative to ARIA and could lead to other issues down the road
JB: asks JO if he can take another pass at this over the next days
JO: can do so this week and will
shoot for end of week
... will try and do justice with what Laura has submitted.
<Judy> [judy will put table summary on the agenda for next week again]
JB: if anyone else has any other input/feedback to this please speak up
<Joshue> Scribe: Josh
<Joshue> JB: I want to see if anyone has comments
<Joshue> JB: Otherwise I think we will leave it for a week or so when SteveF is here.
<Joshue> JF: I have looked at it, it looks good.
<Judy> Judy: FYI, here are Laura's comments on the meta name generator proposal
<Joshue> JF: We don't say that we should be rejecting the current decision, but one has been made - we talk about problems about the descision but what do we suggest?
<Joshue> JF: Are we making a forceful enough case?
<Joshue> JB: Maybe restate it.
<Joshue> JF: The current CP doesn't make a strong case for reversing the desicion.
<Joshue> JB: So make a strong case then!
<Joshue> JF: I will contact Steve about this.
<Joshue> JB: Laura had sent some comments, they are on IRC (dropped in here)- she mentioned evidence that was ignored in the descision - see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Aug/0516.html
<Joshue> JB: She is suggesting adding to Mike Smiths validator
<Joshue> JS: The idea comes from the Birmingham F2F
<Joshue> JS: It is a subtle strategic move, to make this work.
<Judy> and Steve's proposal, reminder link:
<Joshue> JB: Regarding the rest of Steves proposal - if there is anything that others spot, please do comment or drop in IRC etc so Steve can track it
JO: agree that there is not
really clear about what the CP was about.
... Needs to better define what the problem is - more clearly.
JS: it comes back to the use-cases - lay out the problem more clearly right from the start
JB: is the problem with the Title - is it clear enough?
<Joshue> JOC: +1 to Janina
JS: I would change the "does not" to "must not"
<Judy> judy... or "missing alt should not be conforming in the presence of meta name generator"
<Judy> judy: it's useful to offer additional clarification of user needs
<Judy> ...some developers have not necessarily had the exposure to the diversity of users as they carry out different tasks and functions on the web
<Judy> janina: barrier reduction is complex.... some features are needed to ensure usability across people with different disabilities, different configurations, and different skill levels
<Joshue> Just to say I totally agree with Janina, but I remember the maxim 'A man changed against his will is of the same opinion still'
JB: proposing another agenda
... hope we arrive to a better shared understanding
<Joshue> JB: I think we should talk about response to Jonas.
<Joshue> JB: Objections?
<Joshue> JS: Nope, but I have an idea before we wrap up.
<Joshue> JB: Lynn you asked me to send some example for figcaption etc, I haven't sent yet but I need to prepare. There are others looking at this.
<Joshue> JB: Anyone wanting to talk about figcaption?
<Joshue> JB: Thanks to Lynn for offering to test examples, I will be preparing examples to circulate.
<Joshue> JB: Cyns and RichS are both involved.
<Joshue> JB: There will be a discussion in Sept 1st
<Joshue> JB: JohnF's proposal came out this morning, thanks John.
<Joshue> JF: It's a response rather than a proposal really.
<Joshue> <group reads>
<Joshue> I will need more time to parse this doc outside this call..
<Judy> Josh: need to say that the non-discoverability issue is user agent responsibility
<janina> scribe: janina
<Judy> Janina: think we're getting there, with this response. No overall philosophical comments so far. Concern would be just to be more specific, for instance with "this proposal" when there are multiple
<Judy> ...and the description of the current behavior of describedby... that behavior is as is intended... as designed.
<Judy> Janina: Jonas is asking aria describedby to do something it wasn't designed to do, e.g. to subvert the intended designed of aria describedby
<JF> JF: Made a direct edit in the wiki, now reads "In contrast, the *designed* behavior of Screen Reading technology..."
judy: Will need to read more
carefully, but have some rhetorical comments already ...
... Hmmm, looking ... there's a part where, as a reader, I get lost ...
... bottom of discoverability section, there's a Q that goes straight into ...
jf: There are three key points to
be made, noted up top
... Discoverability is first
... Preservation of rich content
... Usability, the need to preserve support for existing UAs
... Have less support in UAs using ARIA at this time
judy: Wondering whether the
rhetorical device of ending a section with a Q may be
confusing, where it's not clear where one section/argument ends
and another begins
... Hopefully a simple suggestion ... End each suection with a simple and clear wrap up
jf: Also agree at keeping the two
proposals distincly clear, identifying Jonas' proposal vs TF
... Can take a bit more time over the next few days
... I hear the feedback and have ideas on how to get this in
... Meanwhile, written feedback will be helpful
<JF> qack JF
laura: Noting that longdesc and table summary issues have much in common
judy: Noting there are two CP's on longdesc in addition to the TF consensud proposal from Laura
<Judy> janina: a lot has changed since TF began
<Judy> ...need to update the consensus process
<Judy> ...proposes that TF can delegate to the TF sub-groups, so that the sub-group can propose a consensus to the TF
<Judy> ...and only gets surveyed if objections raised
<JF> JB: have a number of reservations about this. concerns around levels, process, the fact that this is a joint task-force
janina: proposing that subteams propose a consensus that the TF telecon agrees (or not) and so minutes. Objections raised against those minutes would go to a WBS
<JF> JB: the fact that this is a joint TF makes this even more complicated. Reliance on sub-groups complicates things even more; question of timing and participation criteria
judy: consideration about time flow and participation
<JF> JB: perhaps need to work on this more.
<JF> JS: the unstated notion here is that if you are not participating in the minutes or telecons then you are not participating
<JF> LC: streamlining the policy is a good idea
<JF> but for those who cannot attend the telecons also need the opportunity to provide input'
jf: How much longer will the TF
... Streamlining is a good idea, but participation is an important concern
judy: Support TF consensus
streamlining, but want to be particularly careful about how
this works vis a vis Subteams
... Expect the TF will stay operational until HTML5 goes TR
[discussing schedule for next few weeks]
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/write up/wrap up/ Succeeded: s/discussing/discussion/ Succeeded: s/HTML5 consensus process/HTML5 A11Y TF consensus process/ Found Scribe: Joshue Inferring ScribeNick: Joshue Found Scribe: JF Inferring ScribeNick: JF Found Scribe: Josh Found Scribe: janina Inferring ScribeNick: janina Scribes: Joshue, JF, Josh, janina ScribeNicks: Joshue, JF, janina Default Present: John_Foliot, +44.207.391.aaaa, Judy, Lynn_Holdsworth, Janina, Joshue, Laura_Carlson Present: John_Foliot +44.207.391.aaaa Judy Lynn_Holdsworth Janina Joshue Laura_Carlson Got date from IRC log name: 22 Aug 2011 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2011/08/22-text-minutes.html People with action items: josh WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]