<Judy> scribe: Janina

JF: Will be posting response to Jonas shortly

JB: We need to brainstorm on response to Matt

<JF> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/LongdescZeroEdit

<Judy> Janina: Per previous discussion, I'm suggesting a terse approach to Matt's CP, since most of his points have been responded to previously.

<JF> 2 main assertions from Matt is "Discoverability" problem and his incorrect assertion about 'flattened" aria-describedby

[discussion on JF's response, Wiki or email?]

jb: We'll post to Wiki and summarize in email

<cfit> Hi judy, its josh via new irc client.

<cfit> :-)

<cfit> am holding baby

<cfit> you got it!

<JF> 1 other issue to note is Matt's dismissal of eText requirements with "This does not appear to be a valid use case. "

<Judy> judy: so response to Matt's cp would be re-refuting old 'damage' misunderstandings; pointing to jf's response for programmatic determinability; and explaining assumption (of browser's ability to fix) problem in aria-described portion

<Judy> janina: just disagree?

<Judy> judy: think we need to point out where his discussion of use-cases are wrong

jb: We need to continue to say "wrong" to reasserted erroneous statements
... Pointers to previous refutations can be useful, to point to recycled effort
... Key point is that we have put credible refutations on the table
... We now have uncontested, incorrect assertions that need responses before any survey is conducted

[discussion on goals, audience, understanding, etc]

jb: We may not be talking a terse response any longer, even though each particular point might be short
... Janina and John will talk for Janina to create a response to Matt with pointers into the response to Jonas

jf: Is there value to waiting to coordinate the two?

jb: No, much more important to get the Jonas reponse out asap

longdesc: status of response to Jonas; issues to respond to in Matt's updated change proposal.

<Judy> ACTION: janina and john coordinate on response to matt using pointers where available [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/09/26-text-minutes.html#action01]

jb: Anyone recall differently than that we'll take this to TF now?

<Judy> ACTION: janina coordinate with mike s to get meta generator re-open request and change proposal on TF agenda, with pointers enough in advance of meeting [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/09/26-text-minutes.html#action02]

table summary: use case or argument gaps? <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ReinstateTableSummary>

<cfit> yup

<cfit> I won't have time to develop the use cases

<cfit> If anyone else wants to chime in with some help please do.

<cfit> In terms of framing the CP, I hope it is on the right road.

jb: We still need use cases plus a review to check that the Chair's questions in their decision have been addressed

<Judy> josh, do you think that you addressed every question that the chairs posed in the flow of their decision?

<cfit> Yes, FWIW I did take special care to ensure many of the requirements were met in terms of re-opening the issue at least.

<cfit> Pretty much

<cfit> It was a lot of work tbh

There are two docs to consider

<Judy> josh, we are asking perhaps a diff qu than you are answering.

1.) The requirements for a request to reconsider

<cfit> ok

2.)the original decision to obsolete table summary

<cfit> FWIW, there is enough contained in my CP to frame other requests

<cfit> As best I could Judy

<cfit> I can't say if it was exhaustive, or even enough but it was the best I could do.

<Judy> ack, & thx, on your responding to #2, but we don't know what you mean by your fwiw comment -- to frame what other requests?

<cfit> if what i did isnt enough

<cfit> it could be used as a template

<cfit> just an idea

<cfit> i think it has enough eg aria vs summary etc, more samples in the wild etc

<cfit> i mean aria not as a sufficent functional replacement for summary etc

Lynn: Asking for clarification on what should be in a use case

jb: A terse description of how a particular user's needs are facilitated by table summary
... Good to have 3 or 4 such

<Judy> ACTION: Lynn draft a few use cases for table summary [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/09/26-text-minutes.html#action03]

<cfit> thanks lynn

generated content: update on new discussion sub-group and/or thread? <http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13668>

jf: The issue for the subteam discussion is that CSS can generate content that may, or may not be a11y

jb: Similar question has come up in 508 discussions, wondering whether this relates to ATAG type discussions?
... Wondering about involving AUWG people

jf: Think it's mostly a CSS problem

jb: OK

input into process review?

other business?

confirm next meeting; identify next scribe; adjourn.

<Judy> judy -- tentatively changing time to 4 - 5pm US Eastern; JB will check on list with others.

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/AT_WG/AUWG/
Found Scribe: Janina
Inferring ScribeNick: janina
Default Present: Judy, Janina, John_Foliot, +44.207.391.aaaa
Present: Judy Janina John_Foliot +44.207.391.aaaa
Got date from IRC log name: 26 Sep 2011
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2011/09/26-text-minutes.html
People with action items: coordinate janina lynn mike s with

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.