15:58:14 RRSAgent has joined #html-a11y
15:58:14 logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/11/29-html-a11y-irc
15:58:16 RRSAgent, make logs world
15:58:16 Zakim has joined #html-a11y
15:58:18 Zakim, this will be 2119
15:58:18 ok, trackbot; I see WAI_PFWG(HTML TF)10:00AM scheduled to start 58 minutes ago
15:58:19 Meeting: HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference
15:58:19 Date: 29 November 2012
16:00:47 zakim, who is here?
16:00:47 WAI_PFWG(HTML TF)10:00AM has not yet started, chaals
16:00:49 On IRC I see RRSAgent, JF, Stevef, davidb, MikeSmith, darobin, chaals, MichaelC, hober, trackbot
16:01:45 zakim, this is 2119
16:01:45 ok, chaals; that matches WAI_PFWG(HTML TF)10:00AM
16:01:57 zakim, who is here?
16:01:57 On the phone I see John_Foliot, Judy, ??P11, [IPcaller]
16:01:58 On IRC I see RRSAgent, JF, Stevef, davidb, MikeSmith, darobin, chaals, MichaelC, hober, trackbot
16:02:09 zakim, [ipcaller is me]
16:02:09 +me]; got it
16:02:21 zakim, me] is me
16:02:21 +chaals; got it
16:02:29 agenda?
16:02:55 agenda+ find scribe
16:02:55 agenda+ check action items
16:02:55 agenda+ Face to face meeting with HTML/Webapps in April, Silicon Valley?
16:02:55 agenda+ Outcome of CfC to publish longdesc as FPWD
16:02:55 agenda+ Status of "alt" text in HTML (specification and usage in the document)
16:03:13 +[IPcaller]
16:03:21 zakim, ??p11 is leonie
16:03:22 +leonie; got it
16:03:22 +??P16
16:03:58 zakim, [ipcaller] is IanPouncey
16:03:58 +IanPouncey; got it
16:04:08 zakim, who is here?
16:04:08 On the phone I see John_Foliot, Judy, leonie, chaals, IanPouncey, Michael_Cooper
16:04:11 On IRC I see RRSAgent, JF, Stevef, davidb, MikeSmith, darobin, chaals, MichaelC, hober, trackbot
16:04:13 +[IPcaller]
16:04:43 zakim, [ipcaller is stevef]
16:04:43 +stevef]; got it
16:04:43 IanPouncey has joined #html-a11y
16:04:52 zakim, stevef] is stevef
16:04:52 +stevef; got it
16:05:03 scribe: JF
16:05:19 zakim, next agendum
16:05:19 agendum 1. "find scribe" taken up [from chaals]
16:05:20 Chaals:
16:05:25 zakim, next agendim
16:05:25 I don't understand 'next agendim', chaals
16:05:31 zakim, next agendum
16:05:31 agendum 1 was just opened, chaals
16:05:45 LjW has joined #html-a11y
16:05:52 zakim, close Item 1
16:05:52 agendum 1, find scribe, closed
16:05:53 I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
16:05:53 2. check action items [from chaals]
16:05:59 zakim, next item
16:05:59 agendum 2. "check action items" taken up [from chaals]
16:06:07 chaals: reviewing items
16:06:45 http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/open
16:07:32 Action 148:
16:07:32 Sorry, bad ACTION syntax
16:07:34 ACTION-148?
16:07:34 ACTION-148 -- John Foliot to do a summary of the 2 competing proposals for Issue 194 -- due 2012-11-22 -- OPEN
16:07:34 http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/148
16:07:48 -Judy
16:07:56 JF: still open
16:08:33 JF: will shoot for next week, should be fine
16:08:39 ACTION-148: due in 1 week
16:08:39 ACTION-148 Do a summary of the 2 competing proposals for Issue 194 notes added
16:08:52 +Judy
16:08:53 ACTION-147?
16:08:53 ACTION-147 -- Charles McCathie Nevile to organise meeting between co-chairs and HTML editors to see if we can peacefully resolve the alt text guidance issue -- due 2012-11-22 -- OPEN
16:08:53 http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/147
16:08:54 ACTION-147
16:08:59 paulc has joined #html-a11y
16:09:07 +Cynthia_Shelly
16:09:15 ACTION-146?
16:09:15 ACTION-146 -- Charles McCathie Nevile to publish updated draft and call for consensus running until Monday 26th -- due 2012-11-22 -- OPEN
16:09:15 http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/146
16:09:41 ACTION-144?
16:09:41 ACTION-144 -- Charles McCathie Nevile to check whether we should be looking into accesskeys as an HTML issue -- due 2012-11-15 -- OPEN
16:09:41 http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/144
16:09:49 zakim, what is the code?
16:09:49 the conference code is 2119 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), paulc
16:10:14 Chaals: 147, will return to that later in meeting, 146, working forward, 145 on Janina - ignoring this week due to Janina not being here
16:10:30 Chaals: 144 is accesskeys, still open and on Chaals
16:10:37 mhakkinen has joined #html-a11y
16:11:15 ACTION-144: . due in 1 week
16:11:15 ACTION-144 Check whether we should be looking into accesskeys as an HTML issue notes added
16:11:37 Chaals: 143: on Steve F
16:11:45 +David_MacDonald
16:11:46 ACTION-143?
16:11:46 ACTION-143 -- Steve Faulkner to chase ISSUE-194 by getting to FPWD proposals drafted -- due 2012-11-15 -- OPEN
16:11:46 http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/143
16:12:37 plh has joined #html-a11y
16:12:40 Steve: had a discussion a few weeks back, attempting to get 1 or more extensions specs written
16:12:45 +Plh
16:13:13 David has joined #html-a11y
16:13:20 chaals: steves action item is superceded by JF's Action 149
16:14:31 ACTION: chaals to follow up old action items and see which remain relevent
16:14:31 Created ACTION-149 - Follow up old action items and see which remain relevent [on Charles McCathie Nevile - due 2012-12-06].
16:14:52 zakim, close this agendum
16:14:52 agendum 2 closed
16:14:54 I see 3 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
16:14:54 3. Face to face meeting with HTML/Webapps in April, Silicon Valley? [from chaals]
16:15:10 zakim, next agendum
16:15:10 agendum 3. "Face to face meeting with HTML/Webapps in April, Silicon Valley?" taken up [from chaals]
16:16:05 chaals: looking to have F2F meetings in April - we have been asked if we wish to meet at same time
16:16:20 chaals: is there interest in this at this group?
16:16:27 JF: yes
16:16:45 Cyns: thinks a great idea, and PF was positive too
16:17:28 PLH: at this time there are 3 groups meeting, web apps, WAI-PF and HTML WG
16:17:47 question is, when would you like to meet? as there will be some overlap
16:17:56 ETS would be interested, depending on date (due to other conferences)
16:18:21 q+
16:18:25 Cyns: if the HTML WG uses the unconference mode, that worked well
16:18:59 -Judy
16:19:02 ack me
16:19:06 chaals:
16:19:15 +[Microsoft]
16:19:18 +Judy
16:19:22 strong preference not to overlap with web apps
16:19:44 paulc has joined #html-a11y
16:20:02 q+
16:20:13 Judy: noticed at TPAC that when a certain item was scheduled for a time, missed that slot, and then appeared at a different time with short notice - caused some frustration
16:20:29 due to gathering up view points, etc.
16:20:55 richardschwerdtfeger has joined #html-a11y
16:21:00 unconference mode has worked well, but if there are specific items, having it scheduled is productive
16:21:06 ack me
16:21:17 + +1.619.846.aaaa
16:21:21 +Rich
16:21:22 Zakim, aaaa is me
16:21:22 +hober; got it
16:21:32 PLH: exact locationg TBC, but F2F will be in the Bay Area (Silicon Valley)
16:21:37 zakim, who is on the phone?
16:21:37 On the phone I see John_Foliot, leonie, chaals, IanPouncey, Michael_Cooper, stevef, Cynthia_Shelly, David_MacDonald, Plh, [Microsoft], Judy, hober, Rich
16:21:54 zakim, [Microsoft] has paulc
16:21:54 +paulc; got it
16:22:00 Judy has joined #html-a11y
16:22:01 chaals: regarding unconference mode
16:22:41 we should perhpas ask the HTML WG to run an actual scheduling session at the beginning to ensure we get our own items on the agenda
16:22:50 but that we also look to run our own track
16:23:01 q+
16:23:12 ack plh
16:23:26 chaals: ensure that we communicate with Chairs to be sure we have good communication
16:23:44 PLH: does this mean this TF needs a seperate room>
16:23:57 chaals: not sure - exploring that possibility
16:24:18 Cyns: that may not be needed, at last TPAC we did not use/require
16:24:38 PLH: last F2F in Silicon Valley only used 1 room, and that seemed to work well
16:24:45 q+
16:25:13 chaals: it seemed to work ok, however some of the HTML attendees where unhappy about that
16:25:20 depends on the topics
16:25:50 ack ju
16:26:02 suspect that some of our items are of little interest to the larger group, and that some of the HTML WG topics aren't our concerns
16:27:19 JUdy: given that this is a few months out, and given that we may have new items between now and then, plus the further de-coupling of things (etc.), likely that having a seperate room for this TF have it's own room, at least part of the time
16:27:47 PLH: will ask the host about this, but it should be do-able - very little impact
16:27:59 cyns, perhaps 1 day seperate, one day with larger group
16:28:04 JF: +1 to cyns
16:28:14 LjW has joined #html-a11y
16:28:21 s/(etc.)/, such as the mandate that the TF now has to advance their own extensions as specs,
16:29:14 ACTION on chairs to coordinate with HTML Chairs to ensure joint scheduling is correct at the April F2F
16:29:14 Sorry, couldn't find on. You can review and register nicknames at .
16:29:52 ACTION on Chaals to have TF chairs coor4dinate with HTML Chairs on scheduing for F2F in April
16:29:52 Sorry, couldn't find on. You can review and register nicknames at .
16:30:03 \/me oh never mind\
16:30:30 \/me oh never mind\
16:30:33 zakim, close this agendum
16:30:33 agendum 3 closed
16:30:34 I see 2 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
16:30:34 4. Outcome of CfC to publish longdesc as FPWD [from chaals]
16:30:36 zakim, close item
16:30:36 I don't understand 'close item', JF
16:30:43 zakim, next agendum
16:30:43 agendum 4. "Outcome of CfC to publish longdesc as FPWD" taken up [from chaals]
16:31:37 chaals: we had a CFC set to close before this meeting - we had one set of statements from James Craig saying not fan of Longdesc, plus one objection from Mat Turvey to moving forward
16:32:12 q+
16:32:19 chaals: responded directly to Matt, so perhaps not best to comment, but chaals has a personal position and so may have conflict of interest
16:32:22 Judy:
16:32:45 q+
16:32:52 ack ju
16:32:53 Judy: since I've not followed the list discussion, is there a response from Matt to Chaals' response to his initial objections?
16:32:56 Link to the CFC, please?
16:33:17 ack ste
16:33:28 Aside, treat me like Rip van Winkle - away for 4 weeks.
16:33:37 Q+
16:33:56 stevef: not a huge fan of longedesc, but agree that this should continue to move forward
16:34:04 http://www.w3.org/mid/CA+ri+VnNPq_DRiQjzm0+v5fDyGnNo5VqPVQWoAr8ukn-cchsBQ@mail.gmail.com -> Call for Consensus to request FPWD
16:34:19 as janina pointed out, is part of TF job to provide support and get this out to the WG
16:34:27 this is not a
16:34:59 links to objection?
16:35:03 CFC is not whether you agree with longdesc, but rather if we should move forward on the tech spec
16:35:07 ack jf
16:35:35 Q+
16:35:41 http://www.w3.org/mid/CAFp5+ApBdj-htMGOZQpkChdFJ2Fe3vVrgntnksQ7+PWdaGUVOQ@mail.gmail.com -> objection to publishing from Matt Turvey
16:35:52 ack lj
16:36:21 LjW: just to +1 as the voice of a user, until we have something better lets continue working with this
16:36:35 chaals: any ohter comment5s/thoughts?
16:36:37 +1
16:37:06 PaulC: looking for the actual URL
16:37:23 chaals: pasted into IRC channel
16:37:32 s/the list discussion/all of the list discussion/
16:38:14 chaals: what we have is a handful of comments, along with a request to modify a specific example
16:38:30 copy that
16:39:07 q+
16:39:25 chaals: so question is, is Matt's objection sufficient to stop progress, or should we continue to move forward noting Matt's objection
16:40:07 q+
16:40:13 SteveF: my understanding is that the TF asks the HTML WG to move this forward there, thus at this time we are looking to ask the WG to continue to work on this there
16:40:22 q+
16:40:24 ack SteveF
16:40:29 Ack Paul
16:40:30 ack pau
16:40:55 PaulC: generally agree with earlier comments re: technical details don't need to be finished to move forward
16:41:25 however in this case, sending this along to the Working Group will simply serve to resurface the same objections
16:41:59 ack me
16:42:08 so perhaps addressing each each point, and file bugs against each technical objection would be the way forward
16:42:43 q+
16:42:48 chaals: replied to each objection as an individual
16:43:02 ack JUdy
16:43:35 q+
16:43:49 process -wise, the TF needs the WG "consent" to move forward, as the TF does not have mandate to final publication
16:44:58 q+
16:44:58 Judy: many of the comments were never formally addressed by the TF, and only ever discussed on the list
16:45:01 -chaals
16:45:16 perhaps this TF should split them out and formally address them
16:45:30 Q+
16:45:33 Note that there is a patent policy implication on FPWD: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-exclusion-with
16:45:50 This is at least one reason the associated WGs need to approve the publication.
16:46:20 JUdy: from my perspective, the better the record we have on how the TF responds to the issues, the stronger the "story" moving forward
16:46:38 ack paulc
16:47:04 PaulC: people cannot lose fact re: Patent Policy
16:47:18 the TF does not have the same responsabilities in that regard
16:47:31 zakim, who is making noise?
16:47:39 so there are Process requirements for this to go through the WG
16:47:43 chaals, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: leonie (4%), [Microsoft] (3%), Judy (47%)
16:48:40 Chaals: agree that process is that HTML WG to be the formal group that publishes this
16:49:18 question over whether the WG has delegated the responsibility for publishing, and it appears not
16:49:29 q+
16:50:04 given that this TF will first discuss this, and then have the same debate repeated at the larger WG seems to be a duplication of effort - is there a way to minimize that
16:50:09 ack cha
16:51:02 +1 to pauls suggestion
16:51:05 PaulC: believes that original response answered the question: this TF should address all of the technical objections, and leave process objections to the WG
16:51:21 darobin has joined #html-a11y
16:51:58 darobin has joined #html-a11y
16:52:17 q+
16:52:19 +[IPcaller]
16:53:45 Judy: strongly suggest that this TF respond to technical items formally
16:54:06 this TF can respond to his objections, and get them on the record
16:54:48 ack JF
16:54:52 ack judy
16:55:47 cyns: agree with Judy - important that we have a formal record and deal with each item methodically and specirfically
16:56:24 also believe we should reach consensus within this group, and that the TF speak with one voice, even if we have divergent views internally
16:56:28 ack cyn
16:56:31