HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

24 May 2012


See also: IRC log


Mike_Smith, Janina_Sajka, John_Foliot, John_Foliot, Léonie_Watson, Steve_Faulkner
JF, Léonie Watson


<trackbot> Date: 24 May 2012

<MikeSmith> agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012May/0141.html

<JF> scribe: JF

194 TF resolution

<LeonieW> scribenick: LeonieW

<MikeSmith> -> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ISSUE-194/TranscriptElement Introduction of a <transcript> element

JF: We've done a fair amount of work on this and now have a change proposal.
... It proposes a transcript landmark element that denotes the point on screen where the transcript link could be rendered.
... It also proposes a transcript element on the video element that shares a value with the id of the transcript element.
... There has been some push back from Benjamin, who is keen to continue using an anchor tag. This feels too much like a Dlink and forcing designers to include something on screen will always be difficult.

JS: There has been an email from Ted to say that he won't back this proposal.

JF: I think it's the introduction of the transcript element that Ted finds difficult to reconcile.
... We'll need a survey for this, but I think it should come down to two change proposals.

MS: Did we have feedback from the chairs?

JF: They've given us a lot of scope, but I think they're keen for things to move on.
... We were working towards the 25th.

JS: Will we have a finished CP by then?
... Will we respond to Maciej's email?

JF: Yes.

MS: Once we send out a 48 hour call, we can probably expect some objections. The question is are we ready to take a resolution for sending out the call?
... Other than those involved in the discussion, has there been other disagreement with this CP?

JF: Maciej and Ben, who have both been involved in the email dialogue.

MS: I think the next step is to ask for concensus amongst the TF.

JS: Have we finished dotting the "is" yet?

<MikeSmith> status on issue 194

JF: We can pursue this further to get the fine detailed nailed. It's likely to be Tuesday by the time we can do that. If the chairs are happy, we could postpone the CP deadline to next week?

JB: Is there a trade off? Would the extra time enable us to present a clearer CP that would cause less disagreement? What's the probability of the extra time making a difference?

JF: One question is backwards compatibility, that Maciej proposed. There is also a question about the @media group.
... The backwards compatibility one is the one most likely to make a difference.

JS: We don't have a block 48 to launch it before next Tuesday anyway, so it brings us to next week anyway.

JB: Could be issued late on Monday night EST?

JS: The expiration would come in just ahead of this call though.

JF: If we could push it 'till Monday, I will by that point have had a chance to talk to Silvia and the others.

MS: I'm hearing that we don't want to take a resolution today, and that John will work with the others to finalise the CP.
... Do we need to give the chairs a heads up that we need another week?

JF: Our CP will be ready by this time next week.

Issue 199

<MikeSmith> issue 199 status

MC: Ted and I are playing phone/email tag.

<MikeSmith> action-216?

<trackbot> ACTION-216 does not exist

<MikeSmith> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/216

MS: We're not ready for a TF resolution?

MC: Not yet.

JS: Concerned about blockers on some issues.

MS: Are we having a call next week?

JB: Monday is the US holiday, not Thursday.

MS: We'll put this one on the agenda for next week. Michael if you could get some time with Ted and post an update to the list, that'd be good.

Issue 204

<MikeSmith> issue 204 status

JF: This was with Ted to see if Jonas and Matt might be open to withdrawing their proposals.
... Based on the current email discussion, it doesn't look as though they'll be withdrawing their CPs.

<MikeSmith> latest issue 204 thread

MS: Need to get this wrapped up by next week if we can.

JS: Think it'll go to survey.

JF: There might be an outside chance we can get more closely aligned.

MS: Is there a deadline?

JB: The delays are not coming from the TF.

MS: I'm not seeing a deadline attached to this though.

JF: We've done all we can, so I think this one is in the chair's court.

MS: We should let the chairs know they can go ahead and start the survey then.


<Judy> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/Issue31cMetaGenerator

<Judy> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012May/0094.html

JB: There has been a lot of discussion about this in the last week.
... There are certain observations we'd like to capture. From trainers for example.
... Would like to ask Steve and Léonie for some thoughts on this via email.
... My intention is to put together an updated version.
... We should then be in a position to ask the TF to review the CP as its being polished.

<MikeSmith> http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20120518#l-396

MS: Henry seems to think there is a legacy reason for opposing this.

JB: Hixie's original reason for opposing this issue was undocumented.

MS: The question was raised as to whether HTML Tidy should be changed based on the outcome of this issue.

JB: Can you and I co-ordinate on this?
... The assumptions about tool behaviour are off course. It makes it disconcerting to write this up.

MS: Yes.

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to also add juliene reschke and his new bug

<Judy> JB: and lost time over the weekend to write this up due to being under the weather then

JF: FYI. Julian has filed a new bug based on this point.

JB: The core logic is that people with disabilities should not be put at a disadvantage by this.

<Judy> JB: Daniel's comment: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012May/0104.html

MS: What the TF is asking the chairs to do at this point is to reopen the issue. Once we have the CP updated, that's what we'll do.

JB: With the outline we have, there are a couple of things to shift off page. Also referring to Dan's comments.

<JF> Daniel Glazman is even more specific here in not wanting to remove the meta-generator string: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012May/0108.html

MS: Anyone willing to scribe next week?
... To confirm, there will be a call next week at the usual time.

<scribe> Scribe: Léonie Watson

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.136 (CVS log)
$Date: 2012/05/24 16:06:52 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
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/elemene/element/
Succeeded: s/deadlie/deadline/
Succeeded: s/Glazmon/Glazman/
Found Scribe: JF
Inferring ScribeNick: JF
WARNING: No scribe lines found matching previous ScribeNick pattern: <LeonieW> ...
Found ScribeNick: LeonieW
Found Scribe: Léonie Watson
Scribes: JF, Léonie Watson
ScribeNicks: LeonieW, JF
Default Present: JF, Cooper, Janina_Sajka, Mike, Judy, Cynthia_Shelly, Léonie_Watson, Stevef
Present: Mike_Smith Janina_Sajka John_Foliot John_Foliot Léonie_Watson Steve_Faulkner
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012May/0141.html
Found Date: 24 May 2012
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/05/24-html-a11y-minutes.html
People with action items: 

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]