trackbot, start telcon
<trackbot> Date: 17 May 2012
<scribe> ScribeNick: adrianba
<scribe> Scribe: Adrian Bateman
<trackbot> ACTION-210 -- Sam Ruby to get JF to deliver a revised ISSUE-204 change proposal by next friday -- due 2012-05-10 -- OPEN
rubys: this has been done
<rubys> close action-210
<trackbot> ACTION-210 Get JF to deliver a revised ISSUE-204 change proposal by next friday closed
<trackbot> ACTION-211 -- Sam Ruby to ted O'Connor to write up a video-transcript IDref proposal for ISSUE-194 by Fri May 11 -- due 2012-05-11 -- OPEN
hober: there's been a lot of progress on this over e-mail while i was gone - i think we're close to producing a consensus proposal
... probably by next week i would say
... can we extend until next week
paulc: are you saying we will end up with a single proposal?
hober: i think we'll end up with 2, one to defer and one that would substantively match the idref proposal
paulc: we'll still have to decide between a now feature and a future feature
rubys: the other proposal was to add transcript - will the consensus include john?
hober: don't know - still catching up on mail
rubys: could be consensus with silvia and not with john
hober: that's possible
<rubys> action-211 due 24 May
<trackbot> ACTION-211 Ted O'Connor to write up a video-transcript IDref proposal for ISSUE-194 by Fri May 11 due date now 24 May
paulc: if you could outline where the community lies when you update proposals that would be helpful
<trackbot> ACTION-213 -- Sam Ruby to get JF to deliver a revised ISSUE-194 change proposal by next friday -- due 2012-05-11 -- OPEN
rubys: due last friday, anybody know the status?
paulc: i believe ted's previous description, john started doing this and silvia got involved - i think there is a mail on the archive asking for an extension
hober: if it would make it easier, consolidating the two actions might be useful
rubys: i would like confirmation form john that he intends to support the consensus position
... i will leave it as two actions and try to get in touch with john after the call
janina: we think we're coming to a single proposal that does include john
<rubys> action-213 due 24 May
<trackbot> ACTION-213 Get JF to deliver a revised ISSUE-194 change proposal by next friday due date now 24 May
rubys: great news, moving this to next thursday also
<trackbot> ACTION-217 -- Richard Schwerdtfeger to create an updated Caret ring focus (Rich, Ted, Frank) ISSUE-201 CP -- due 2012-05-11 -- OPEN
rubys: on this we had a note from rich
hober: frank and rich have been emailing over the last week on this and i need to catch up on the thread - they've been making progress
rubys: making progress but rich is on vacation for 2 weeks and he is asking for an extension to june 8
hober: i think between now and then frank and i will be able to converge a lot more and then discuss with rich
paulc: are there other people who need to involved here?
janina: rich is the spearhead
<rubys> action 217 due June 7
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - 217
<rubys> action-217 due june 7
<trackbot> ACTION-217 Create an updated Caret ring focus (Rich, Ted, Frank) ISSUE-201 CP due date now june 7
paulc: perhaps we could get a status report on this next week also
hober: sounds good to me
paulc: let's put it on the agenda for next week
<trackbot> ACTION-216 -- Michael Cooper to update ISSUE-199 proposal based on Ted's -- due 2012-05-18 -- OPEN
paulc: i sent michael a private note on this matter and got an indication back that he thought the date was wrong
hober: i'm hoping to have a call with michael about this
paulc: michael though the due date was may 25, perhaps we can make it may 24 for the call next week?
<rubys> action-216 due 24 May
<trackbot> ACTION-216 Update ISSUE-199 proposal based on Ted's due date now 24 May
hober: sounds good
<trackbot> ACTION-218 -- Paul Cotton to determine day and time for a weekly Media teleconference -- due 2012-05-22 -- OPEN
<paulc> Draft media teleconference survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/media/ (still closed and under Chair/Team review)
paulc: i built a survey using wbs - that's a link to the draft - this is still closed
... i'm taking feedback from people including chairs and team
... i think i've taken everyone's feedback - this is available to w3c members outside the group because we believe there are some members who might join the WG to participate in this
... this should go out today
... since there may be more technical discussion in these calls we want to be as inclusive as possible
janina: this is the media group in the WG not the a11y TF
paulc: i will make that clear in the text for the survey
... action not yet done but almost
<trackbot> ISSUE-184 -- Add a data element -- open
rubys: given a deadline for revised change proposals and the revision is complete - next step is for the chairs to review the revised proposals
<trackbot> ISSUE-205 -- Define what author guidance and/or methods should be provided to those that wish to create accessible text editors using canvas as a rendering surface. -- open
rubys: given a deadline for revised proposals which is today
... so far not seen any revisions
rubys: 31c re-open request
judy: we received a response from sam on behalf of the chairs and we discussed that in the tf meeting this morning
... several concerns including the framing of the response
... we think what we received is ambiguous as either a review or denial of the request so we're taking it as a review that we intend to discuss a draft of next tuesday and forward with answers to questions raised
... i wanted to first establish if this was intended as a review or denial
rubys: in some sense it is a denial but not intended to close the door - if you update then we'll review
judy: in the current timeframe?
rubys: the timeframe has passed - we're in uncharted territory
judy: i'm assuming we're still okay to continue
rubys: nothing more to add, no
judy: we'll be providing some additional clarifications to that, some concern about the type of evidence being asked for
... will address those in writing
rubys: there are some people who believe in some statements and others that believe the opposite - we'd like to see some concrete evidence
judy: that is my understanding
... i have to point out that there is a perception that the same requirement isn't being put on all parties
... no further comments on 31c for now
rubys: we need to actually show that if the validator was changed then people would actually change behaviour
judy: i did include that in the change proposal but it's difficult to prove harm for something that is not in place yet
... you don't want to have widespread evidence of damage - we want to avoid this happening because of something in the spec
cyns: if someone were to create a controlled experiment looking at behaviour of authors based on validator results would that be helpful?
rubys: comments from an actual user saying i would change behaviour based on validator is something we don't have already
judy: if we just need a few quotes from people that do lots of training that this is exactly the situation they would pay attention to, those kind of things we have seen in the past over and over again
... we can say that more clearly but i don't want to set-up projects to review this
cyns: are you looking for anecdotal evidence or something else?
rubys: anecdotal evidence was called for in the original decision - the closer you can get to actual users saying they will change behaviour the better
... trainers for authors i understand the clarification, but if you can get information directly from authors that's helpful
cyns: the problem is that if you ask people directly they don't know - i find it frustrating that asking trainers is discounted given their experience
... one more point, one of the points judy made was about evidence from, for want of a better word, the other side
... i don't think we have concrete evidence for that - it is similar experience from people dealing with authors
... i'd really like to see real research but at the moment i don't see everyone being asked for the same evidence and i don't think asking authors is enough
rubys: right now we're examining reopening the issue, if the issue is reopened then we'll ask for equal evidence from everyone
cyns: i'm worried about locking out future behaviour like we discussed with 204
judy: i don't think it's a question of future behaviour - the problem isn't locking out innovation, it's a failure to recognize existing authoring tool behaviour - and we have already documented that this though
rubys: next up is HTML-A11Y task force consensus on issue-204
<trackbot> ISSUE-204 -- Exempt ARIA attributes from the rule that prohibits reference to hidden elements -- open
janina: the objections in the consensus resolution are from one individual that in many cases are looking for a different level of requirements
... for instance that this should not be a pattern that we encourage
... and use language that we use language that says SHOULD NOT use this
... we have not ignored these objections but i don't know we can do anything more with them as it standards
... his recent response is about a whole new approach
rubys: i have 2 questions, one for benjamin about what he does support and he's not here to answer that
... the other question is if we end up with the current two proposals i assume we will get strong objections to one of them
... i think we tweaked cynthia's proposal sufficiently to bring the 2 in line
... the recent version considers the implications of the changes
... i cannot tell if the other proposal is saying exactly the same thing in the details section because it is a diff that is harder to read
... i think the newest change is to discourage use of this
cyns: i can't think of any stronger way of discouraging users than saying SHOULD NOT
... isn't the time for counter proposals long past?
judy: i'm concerned if someone isn't coming to the table to participate - it now seems like we're abandoning the work from the f2f?
janina: aren't we trying to get to a single proposal?
judy: are we dropping the good work done because of one person?
rubys: we are going to proceed soon to a survey
janina: is it possible the other proposal could be withdrawn to remove the need for the survey?
hober: it is possible
rubys: if that happened, normal action would be to do a CfC with a firm one week deadline after which we confirm consensus and move on
hober: i need to talk to jonas
cyns: do you know when?
hober: hopefully today, otherwise early next week
cyns: thanks for pushing on this
rubys: Update on editor search
rubys: we have a number of candidates but have also chosen to extend the deadline
... other business?
judy: we need a coordination meeting
rubys: i don't have any unmoveable meetings in the next couple of days
<tantek> I've reviewed the recent messages on Issue 184, and I don't see any actions for me to take to move things forward.
paulc: i'm starting a thread right now with the chairs
judy: i had one could you use that one
<glenn> i can scribe
<tantek> For what it's worth I still think the counter-proposal is problematic, both for the reasons the chairs raise, and for the simple fact that a 'type' attribute is unnecessary and actually *hurts* usability of date/time information as compared to the simple and agreed upon <time> element.
rubys: glenn has volunteered, thanks glenn
rubys: thanks everybody
<tantek> adrianba - I checked the emails on the topic, and no revision was requested of my original change proposal for 184
<tantek> that being said, since from email traffic it appears the counter-proposal is still being incrementally updated, I think I will put in a short section in my original proposal stating briefly why the counter-proposal is both unnecessary and undesirable.
<tantek> I'll also note that there were no objections (and thus consensus) at the recent f2f regarding my original proposal for 184.
trackbot, end telcon
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.133 of Date: 2008/01/18 18:48:51 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/behaviour - we've already addressed/behaviour - the problem isn't locking out innovation, it's a failure to recognize existing authoring tool behaviour - and we have already documented that/ Found ScribeNick: adrianba Found Scribe: Adrian Bateman Default Present: [GVoice], +25686aaaa, Aaron, hober, glenn, Sam, adrianba, Radhika_Roy, joesteele, paulc, Clarke, +1.206.850.aabb, eliot, Cynthia_Shelly, Judy, [Microsoft], Jay, kstreeter, tantek Present: [GVoice] +25686aaaa Aaron hober glenn Sam adrianba Radhika_Roy joesteele paulc Clarke +1.206.850.aabb eliot Cynthia_Shelly Judy [Microsoft] Jay kstreeter tantek Milan_Patel Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-wg-announce/2012AprJun/0014.html Found Date: 17 May 2012 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/05/17-html-wg-minutes.html People with action items: WARNING: IRC log location not specified! (You can ignore this warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain a link to the original IRC log.)[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]