See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 02 August 2012
<scribe> scribe: janina
<MikeSmith> paulc, you dialing in?
rich: Haven't seen a response from Ted or Frank
mike: Nothing on WG list as of overnight either
rich: Unsure why some of the prohibitions are there, but they're serious and suspect they're unintentional
mike: Anything else we could do in parallel?
rich: We're waiting for agreement
on line one of text
... Also haven't heard from Frank
mike: John, you posted a test page? More to say?
john: Supposedly we can expose
structure in hidden div
... Understand this should work in FF14, but I wasn't able to confirm that
rich: What do you mean "can be done in FF?"
john: That FF will expose the content
rich: By design FF doesn't map
hidden content to a11y api
... We tried this strategy years ago in Home Page Reader (HPR)
... Problem is that you're now asking AT to function as the browser
... Rather, you want the browser to expose the content in such a way that the AT can walk the struct
john: Point of test page is to
illustrate approach of one of the CPs doesn't work
... V4 disallows for that reason, and that the sighted kybd user is lost with unfocussed tab stops
steve: I do see the text portion from your test page, not sure whether or not it announces it
rich: Yes, it's stringified
... But the struct is not exposed to AT
steve: only text content at this time is exposed
john: My example, n response partly to Simon, is the nested lists, headings, URIs, etc.
<JF> +1 to losing tab focus comment by Judy
judy: Want to focus back on the
next steps re the Issue WBS, it's important to clearly identify
the problems exposed via the test page in the WBS
... The disappearing cursor is one important point. We need to circulate this with a description for people who don't get it yet
john: Biggest problem is that survey closes Friday, so that all we can do is to file ...
judy: Yes, putting this in survey
is important, but also explaining this on list so that the
wider community can understand the design flaw.
... We've been speculating this for months and people haven't understood it. Now, that we can show it, we need to make it clear.
rich: I'm concerned that people
are making assertions who don't have the requisite
understanding to be speaking authoratatively
... To those of us who have worked in this area for years, this is obvious.
mike: I think this is important pointing out in an email
rich: We saw similar in
Issue-205, where there were assertions on things working, but
no understanding why they aren't working for the a11y
... It's particularly bad because the H5 chairs have been making these kinds of assertions without having the technical background to understand the a11y implications of their assertions. It's happening very consistently and that's a problem.
judy: Rich, many people share that concern, but we need to get through today's agenda critically.
judy: We had suggested to the CCs
some ways to move forward expiditously,
... The q that came on list, however, was specifically whether the CPs on 30 were ready to go
... Because we're waiting on decisions on 204, and also 194, not knowing what those will be, can impact what we need to say in 30
... Laura does indicate willingness to accept a preamble in her CP
... So, needing to see the decisions, possibly taking this through PF, and certainly taking it through the TF again, makes the 17th unworkable, especially as August is a heavy vacation month
... Clearly everyone inows I30 is one of the key issues we want to get back to, but need to do it properly
... Particurly critical is our need to see the decisions, and address any assertions in them appropriately with PF and TF participation.
... So, this is partially a Text Subteam report as we discussed this
mike: So, the only action here is that the chairs give more time
judy: In terms of coordination,
... There are several actions in process now on this from the Text Subteam
john: CCs did indicate on list, first asking whether more time was needed, and Paul indicating up to a month as I read it
<paulc> Please respond to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012Aug/0003.html
judy: An appropriate venue for discussing this kind of topic, agreed in Bilbao, would be a coordination call
paul: We want this done in
... I offered coordination mtg Tuesday and haven't heard
judy: You'll probably hear us agreeing Tuesday
mike: Judy, do you want this up on the WG call?
judy: Can continue to assert what
we've said here if desired
... e.g. if CCs can announce a date for decision on 204, would be helpful for us to designate a date when we would be ready
janina: Asking whether people on this call agree with this progression?
mike: Can't say myself as I'm not up to speed on these dependencies
john: Yes, the entire question of approach in 30 needs to be informed by the decision on 204.
jf: Don't think this should be shocking or surprising
judy: Perhaps another way to say it is to appropriately respond to continuing misunderstandings of the dependencies, which may still be present in a 204 decision.
mike: Seems people actively working on this feel quite strongly on this.
janina: Yes, possible exception of Laura
mike: a ton of on list discussion
the last 24 hours or so
... reviewing history of meta generator ...
... CP asked for 31c decision to be reissued and it was as Issue-206
... CP said remove the meta generator exemption
... Seems no one is advocating for the meta generator any longer
... I can also say Hickson is also prepared to remove it from the WHAT spec
... my goal is to make our validator as useful as we can, and to keep it and v.new in sync as well
... So, we have an additional CP now to identify via attrib images put in by auto tool
steve: q about keeping validators in sync? Following what?
mike: No, we follow our spec
judy: Been reading, much
interesting discussion on thread, initially disappointed that
user requirements not addressed in the early discussion, but
that seems to have changed now
... One discussion point should be how tightly constrained the set that this tag would apply to
... Think Laura's proposal offers an interesting distinction here
janina: Yes, wanted to suggest
discussing why spec rather than validator filter is a good
... Also like Mike's suggest default warning msg
john: Concerned that validating a
page with these errors is improper
... Haven't caught up with the overnight thread, though
... We also need to do something for the user that needs to deal with the results of missing alt
steve: I think this is potentially a good thing for the end user
<LeonieWatson> +1 to JF's worry that the UX is getting lost
steve: I spend time look at real
world apps; see a lot of no alt and no indication of what the
image is about, so users don't know there's something tthere
with value they're missing
... being told there's an image without alt is better than not knowing there's an image there at all
mike: I expect we'll have this
agendum again next week.
... Don't think we have a deadline at this point
john: There's an Aug 8 deadline for counter CPs, and expect that bar has been met
mike: Noting we're over the hour,
anything else for today?
... OK. We're adjourned until next week!
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/line/one/ Succeeded: s/mike/rich/ Succeeded: s/mike: We saw/rich: We saw/ Found Scribe: janina Inferring ScribeNick: janina Default Present: John_Foliot, Mike, Janina, Judy, Rich, Michael_Cooper, paulc, +44.117.929.aaaa, Leonie, Steve Present: John_Foliot Mike Janina Judy Rich Michael_Cooper paulc +44.117.929.aaaa Leonie Steve Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012Aug/0029.html Found Date: 02 Aug 2012 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/08/02-html-a11y-minutes.html People with action items:[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]