20 Mar 2012

See also: IRC log


Judy, Janina, John, David_MacDonald, Laura_Carlson
Judy, janina


<janina> Email from Paul that none of the times we suggested works for him ...

<Judy> scribe: Judy

All: some general discussion about accessibility change proposals not moving forward; denials of re-open requests; denials of proposed new issues.

communications on longdesc

Judy: surprised to see the email from Sam this weekend asking whether to move forward on longdesc CP. Perhaps we can clarify that for him.

John: concerned last week in A11Y to hear Mike's assertion that the longdesc CP wasn't TF supported

Judy: yes, we have to clarify that

Janina: I sent clarification to Mike, but need to send to the TF as well

Judy: right, it was TF-supported from last May

Janina: and then it was reinforced in December.

Judy: I
... Also, I want clarify to the TF list that the TF is indeed charged with coming up with proposals and indicating their support

Janina: I'm chairing the TF this week

Judy: think that these clarifications need to be documented in the TF discussion this Thursday (it affects multiple "text" issues).
... we were discussing the possibility of several formal objections on process

Laura: wondering about an appeal, on the delay on processing longdesc CP. Mike said could do appeal.

Judy: You can ask for an expedited appeal of the formal objection. But I don't think you can ask for an appeal on something that there hasn't been a formal objection filed on.

<janina> scribe: janina

judy: I and Janina have requested coordination mtg with one of the chairs, but have been unsuccessful trying to get it scheduled for over a week now
... Concerned that one of the chairs is asking the list whether there is more work on longdesc while Judy and Janina have both consistently been asking, on behalf of the TF, for the question to move forward

<Judy> John: There is a CP from Leif today on longdesc

<Judy> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012Mar/0207.html

<Judy> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/LinkLongdescToRoleOfImg

<Judy> Laura: and this would extend longdesc

<Judy> John: and the Chairs denied as a new issue

<Judy> Laura: I had tried to set it up as a separate issue, as it shouldn't be combined with the primary question

<Judy> scribe: Judy

Judy: Opinions on Leif's new proposal?

John: In theory what he is proposal is logical and makes sense; for instance, should longdesc be reinstated as fully conformant, it could be extended... attach to video... etc... there is a clear use case

Janina: there seems to be general agreement on list that there are other elements that would benefit from a longer description, but not general agreement that this is the way to squeeze it in

John: and so Leif is looking at how this could be done
... in any of the accessibility APIs there isn't a way to work that in
... this might satisfy a few things, BUT:

all of these ideas have come too late in the process. They should be an HTML.next discussion. The Chairs still have to call the question on longdesc.

Laura: It could be now, in HTML5

John: but the timeline isn't there
... i don't want to rush the discussion around expanding longdesc, have a good exploratory discussion, and not do that now.
... As Charles pointed out, there is not time for implementation, and without that, it won't happen anyway.

Janina: The 2nd but is that we're grabbing an ARIA feature to use in a particular way to shoehorn generally, and breaks how we've conceived of ARIA working.

Judy: what is our recommendation to the TF, to support this or not?

Laura: I would support something in this direction *IF* there were a new issue option, but not specifically the proposed approach in Leif's CP; and NOT in place of the existing TF-supported longdesc proposal

<janina> }1

John: +1 to Laura's comment

<janina> I don't think we need Leif's ARIA mechanism to extend longdesc to other HTML elements

(Discussion back and forth about the need to call issue 30, and that Leif's proposal may not actually be needed at all)

John: I think that the text subteam should recommend to the A11Y TF that they look at Leif's proposal down the road when there is time to consider HTML.next, but to de-link these issues for now.

David: I agree with that exactly.

Janina: Issue 30 needs to be heard on its own merits now

Judy: We may even need a clearer statement, e.g. that the TF (after discussion to see where they are) does not support Leif's at this time.

David: it is only muddying the waters at this time

Judy: So the text subteam recommends that the TF re-affirm support for the existing longdesc CP, and requests that it be heard asap. E.g. this is the text sub-team's rec to the TF for their discussion and support, as the case may be.

FYI on thoughts on ARIA 1.1 describedAT

Judy: was concerned that an idea for later, from Rich and Steve, might be confused for a current new longdesc proposal; Rich has clarified to a few people that that is not the case; text subteam recommends the same clarification for the TF meeting.

David: agreed. interested to hear more about it for later

status of coordination request with regard to meta-name generator

Judy: Janina and I have sent a summary to HTML CoChairs of background on our concerns about the focus of discussion on meta name generator, noting that the HTML5 CoChairs seem to not be taking into account the primary issue, which is...

Janina: they aren't taking into account user requirements.
... CMS does not impede authors from providing alt.

Judy: so their line of inquiry -- and denial -- are not relevant to the core question.

status of bugs on HTML5 alt guidance, and CP on WG location of alt guidance http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/movealt

Judy: Janina and I also have a coordination request to CoChairs requesting resolution of the multi-year-old bugs on incorrect alt guidance in HTML5 spec
... it is pending discussion

confirm status up to date at http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Accessibility_Change_Proposal_Status

Judy: deferred

any remaining text bugs to discuss or track

Judy: seems like there was one more "text" related issue that came up in last TF's discussion; double-check there?

confirm next meeting; identify next scribe; adjourn

NEXT MEETING: same time next week

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.136 (CVS log)
$Date: 2012/03/20 19:28:02 $