See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 19 July 2012
<MikeSmith> Zakim: call Mike
<scribe> scribe: Léonie Watson
MS: Taking a resolution on issue 194.
<MichaelC> scribeNick: LeonieW
<MikeSmith> issue 194 = Provide a mechanism for associating a full transcript with an audio or video element.
JS: A transcript is an important alternative medium for at least one group of users.
JB: We want to be clear that the 0 change proposal wouldn't satisfy accessibility.
MS: We'll put this out for 48 hour call. We'd expect a resolution early next week.
<janina> DRAFT RESOLUTION: The TF opposes the Zero Change Proposal offered on Issue-194 because a transcript is important to satisfy disability alternative media requirements for persons with disabilities as described in the TF's Media Accessibility User Requirements.
<MikeSmith> Media Accessibility User Requirements
MS: Any objections to the wording?
DM: Are we proposing an alternative to the 0 change proposal?
JS: We should discuss that
separately if we want to do that.
... In strict accessibility terms, either of the other proposals would be ok.
JB: Is there an efficient path? Perhaps we could indicate one of the other proposals?
DM: That might help convey the right message of consencus amongst the TF.
JS: Let's leave that so we can discuss and agree concensus for one of the other proposals.
MS: Any objections to the wording and/or the resolution itself?
<MikeSmith> RESOLUTION: The TF opposes the Zero Change Proposal offered on Issue-194 because a transcript is important to satisfy disability alternative media requirements for persons with disabilities as described in the TF's Media Accessibility User Requirements.
JS: I'll circulate this.
PC: You need to log your arguments.
JB: Paul, I understand you only want comments from individuals, but some may come more directly from PF.
PC: We prefer not to have +1 comments.
JB: I don't mean +1 nescessarily.
MS: Lets look at the remaining change proposals.
JF: Both proposals have strengths
and weaknesses. The proposal that has transcript as an
attribute,and the proposal that uses an idref to create an
... The idref proposal is pulled to an absolute URL. This means other attributes can be added, such as lang.
... This makes it more extensible and flexible. My personal thought is despite this, the transcript attribute is the better proposal.
MS: If there isn't a strong accessibility reason to endorse one proposal over the other, we should probably acknowledge that.
PC: +1 to Janina.
MS: Let's not endorse either proposal at this point in that case. That doesn't prevent individuals from providing comments through the survey.
MS: There have been announcements around other issues. Don't think any of those need us to take action at this point though.
JS: I'm a little concerned about
... Paul had mentioned we had two proposals out there. I worry we're not communicating enough or properly.
RS: Agreed. The trouble is lightweight objects not being keyboard accessible, and restrictions on states and properties.
<MikeSmith> related message from Paul
RS: If lightweight objects could be moved to HTML.Next, that would be practical.
MS: Sounds like someone needs to take action on this?
RS: Happy to join a discussion
early next week, but I'm otherwise out of time.
... Everyone understands why we need lightweight objects, we just need more time.
MS: There is no deadline at the moment. It would be good for us to get agreement.
JS: It sounds like a conversation could get this resolved.
RS: Agreed. It's getting to the
call that's the challenge.
... Steve, could we get on a call next week, before Wednesday?
SF: I can be available.
JS: Steve, could you organise the call?
SF: I can try.
PC: I suggest that Rich and Steve
agree a couple of options for a call on Monday or Tuesday, and
then someone from the TF (possibly me) offers up that time on
the HTML call where Ted and possibly Frank will be.
... Just confirmed both Ted and Frank will be on the HTML call later.
MS: Any other open issues?
JB: Janina and I have been looking at 204. One of the issues is that there are different assertions of what the 204 proposal says. It's only in diff language from Ted. Could we ask him to verify in writing what his proposal is, or to build it as a proposal?
PC: I opened a thread on this, so would prefer it dealth with via the thread instead of verbally.
JB: Would verbally be ok for the moment? We had not gotten clear follow up through email, so it seemed like orally might get more clarity.
PC: There is a sentiment amongst the chairs that things are clear enough. We're asking for more input by close Boston time today.
JB: Text sub team hasn't met recently. The alt guidance issue is still pending, but everything else is in process.
LW: Bug triage. Continuing to monitor new bugs.
<paulc> I sent a meeting request to Ted, Frank, Steve and Rich. See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2012Jul/0013.html
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/transcript as an element, /transcript as an attribute,/ Succeeded: s/It started to feel like email wasn't getting us very far./We had not gotten clear follow up through email, so it seemed like orally might get more clarity./ Found Scribe: Léonie Watson Found ScribeNick: LeonieW Present: David_McDonald Janina_Sajka John_Foliot Judy_Brewer Léonie_Watson Michael_Cooper Mike_Smith Paul_Cotton Rich_Schwerdtfeger Steve_Faulkner David Macdonald WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth Found Date: 19 Jul 2012 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/07/19-html-a11y-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]