See also: IRC log
<JF> scribe: JF
<Judy> scribe: John
<JF> scribe: JF
JB: looking at the various deadlines this week
update is the agenda
updates will be given on per-topic basis
JB: thanks to David for doing the review and compilation of results
Janina has some items to address there today
JS: will take David's lists and combine into an email to the chairs - looking forward to next steps discussion
JB: hoping to loop Steve F into this - Steve recommends to file bugs and share with WCAG Techniques group
David: this is a different document - a review of Steve's document which will be reviewed later this week
Don't think Steve has commented on the HTML5 comments
JB: will this be addressed this week?
David: does anyone have any further feedback?
JS: unable to determine if anything is missed, but list is substantial enough to have the discussion
Multiple Authors + Laura has taken a pass on it as well
JB: the intent is that even if the first two items make this point moot, it still is valuable to get more clarity on the table.
ideal is to submit today and then await feedback - in case there is anything problematic
JS: this seems to be sufficiently damning that they will need to reconsider
This will then open the next step - CfC from the chairs
hoping that laura can join us on the phone as well as via IRC
JS: Having Mike become one of the co-authors helps add some weight as well
JB: hope to review both meta-generator and Issue 204
<janina> scribe: janina
<Judy> --- briefly interrupting 31c discussion to check in on 204 ---
judy: Checking on status of other proposals, Laura, Benjamin and people's intent
laura: Think we're set to move forward
judy: Think there's still lack of clarity we need to fix
laura: I'll put a note in and send email
janina: Suggest John's steps are a good model, text in the CP (now a note) and an email to public-html and TF lists
laura: This would mean that we stop working further on 204, correct?
judy: Given that it's formally
transmitted, yes. It signals the H5 CCs to move toward a
... Also suggest letting Cynthia know to forestall any further editing
judy: So, next step will be a WBS, we should plan for that a bit now ...
john: the two cps are really the same, except that we describe what happens and also the implications
janina: also our details section with spec changes
john: missing what to do with aria-hidden
janina: say more?
john: no guidance on it
janina: but why would the h5 spec give aira authoring guidance?
john: mozilla and nvda are making decisions here, for instance
judy: OK, don't want to do a deep dive at this point, can you discuss during the H5 F2F?
<JF> scribe: JF
JB: goal is to not cover every issue that surfaced, but rather the high-level items
It is impossible to determine if the tag has been inserted "by hand" or not
assumption is that content is ONLY authored by a tool, or by hand, whereas a lot of content is actually manipulated via a combination
of the 2
<Judy> **jb edit** note that eval tools also add generator tags
<Judy> **jb edit** note that once gen tag added, interrupts normal validator identification of alt
<Judy> **jb edit** note gen tag is not taken out once it's in
David: wonders where the term "Magic Semantics" comes from
JB: term that has been used before, and accurately captures the problem at hand
JB: next piece that was important to get on the record was the "weighting" criteria
not very many other examples of this procedure used - in fact are there any other judgements that used this process?
LC: thinks a lot of other decisions use the same criteria, but not as precisely as here
JB: seems that there is no issue here then?
JB: in reviewing actual survey responses, there were very few comments that noted that this was breaking end-user requirements
Laura made mention of this.
<Judy> **jb edit** interleave the counter-evidence more frequently in the users over authors part
[Discussion on the end-user requirement being missed]
<laura> I have to drop off the call now. Bye.
<Judy> bye, thx
JF: suggests to split this into 2 separate arguments
<Judy> **jb edit** call out the two separate arguments of the "evidence catch-22" more explicitly in the last section of the 31c cp.
related but sufficiently different
David: 2 things want to ensure we have covered off
have we made the point that this contradicts WCAG 2
the other use-case was the blind photographer issue
JB: this is totally a red herring argument, so avoid getting dragged into that sink-hole
it can be addressed in the WBS if required
JS: it is currently in the spec, but in the seciton we are seeking to remove
JB: glad to hear that there is no real concerns on this to date
<Judy> **jb edt** positive effects, negative effects
<Judy> **jb edit** positive effects, negative effects
JF: suggest moving the Use Cases to a seperate document similar to Issue 30 to help tighten up a lengthy document
<Judy> **jb edit** capture crisp paraphrase of author use cases under appropriate section, then link offline to Leif's expanded version
JF: also suggest to circle back to Mike Smith re: conformance Class Changes (maybe henri S too ?)
JB: will launch this today to the list
JB: sending this for reconsideration for re-open request
<Judy> **jb edit** quick revisions this afternoon then submit to chairs and send to lists as FYI, noting that it can be refined while counter-proposals being called
[Discussion on final URL for this wiki-page - move it to a new URI different from captured in today's minutes]
<Judy> **jb edit** move to a renamed URI, with meta_generator_reopen
Judy will move the URI, and then push to the list, etc.
<Judy> JB: HTML CoChairs will likely set a deadline next week for probably the following week for an updated cp o 194
<Judy> JF: thought that was done?
<Judy> JS: thought they had provided feedback on the pending cp noting revisions suggested
<Judy> JF: got response from Sam... saying... that they needed details/specifics about what language would actually be changed in the spec
<Judy> JS: we can ask someone to help on that
<Judy> JF: I'll ask frank to fill in some details
JB: Issues on this is scheduled for (hopefully) thursday ~10:00 AM
anticipate 30 minutes - may need a breakout room
Michael Cooper will be key to this, but acting remotely
JS: I 203 is transmitted - in the Chairs hands now
JB on vacation next week - Janina to chair. JB & JS to coordinate agenda
<Judy> NEXT MEETING MAY 8TH
next call = same bat-time, same bat-channel
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/shre/share/ Succeeded: s/is something of/is totally/ FAILED: s/secition/section/ Found Scribe: JF Found Scribe: John Found Scribe: JF Inferring ScribeNick: JF Found Scribe: janina Inferring ScribeNick: janina Found Scribe: JF Inferring ScribeNick: JF Scribes: JF, John, janina ScribeNicks: JF, janina Default Present: David_MacDonald, Janina, Judy, John_Foliot, Laura_Carlson Present: David_MacDonald Janina Judy John_Foliot Laura_Carlson Got date from IRC log name: 01 May 2012 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/05/01-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]