W3C

- DRAFT -

HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

29 Nov 2012

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
J_brewer, MichaelC, JFoliot, CynthiaShelley, RichS, Leonie, David_McDonald, PaulC, Ted_(Hober), SteveF
Regrets
Janina
Chair
Chaals
Scribe
JF

Contents


<trackbot> Date: 29 November 2012

<scribe> scribe: JF

find scribe

Chaals:

check action items

chaals: reviewing items

<MichaelC> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/open

<scribe> ACTION: 148 to [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/29-html-a11y-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Sorry, bad ACTION syntax

<chaals> ACTION-148?

<trackbot> ACTION-148 -- John Foliot to do a summary of the 2 competing proposals for Issue 194 -- due 2012-11-22 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/148

JF: still open
... will shoot for next week, should be fine

<chaals> ACTION-148: due in 1 week

<trackbot> ACTION-148 Do a summary of the 2 competing proposals for Issue 194 notes added

<chaals> ACTION-147?

<trackbot> 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

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/147

ACTION-147

<chaals> ACTION-146?

<trackbot> ACTION-146 -- Charles McCathie Nevile to publish updated draft and call for consensus running until Monday 26th -- due 2012-11-22 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/146

<chaals> ACTION-144?

<trackbot> ACTION-144 -- Charles McCathie Nevile to check whether we should be looking into accesskeys as an HTML issue -- due 2012-11-15 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/144

Chaals: 147, will return to that later in meeting, 146, working forward, 145 on Janina - ignoring this week due to Janina not being here
... 144 is accesskeys, still open and on Chaals

<chaals> ACTION-144: . due in 1 week

<trackbot> ACTION-144 Check whether we should be looking into accesskeys as an HTML issue notes added

Chaals: 143: on Steve F

<chaals> ACTION-143?

<trackbot> ACTION-143 -- Steve Faulkner to chase ISSUE-194 by getting to FPWD proposals drafted -- due 2012-11-15 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/143

Steve: had a discussion a few weeks back, attempting to get 1 or more extensions specs written

chaals: steves action item is superceded by JF's Action 149

<scribe> ACTION: chaals to follow up old action items and see which remain relevent [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/29-html-a11y-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-149 - Follow up old action items and see which remain relevent [on Charles McCathie Nevile - due 2012-12-06].

Face to face meeting with HTML/Webapps in April, Silicon Valley?

chaals: looking to have F2F meetings in April - we have been asked if we wish to meet at same time
... is there interest in this at this group?

JF: yes

Cyns: thinks a great idea, and PF was positive too

PLH: at this time there are 3 groups meeting, web apps, WAI-PF and HTML WG

question is, when would you like to meet? as there will be some overlap

<mhakkinen> ETS would be interested, depending on date (due to other conferences)

Cyns: if the HTML WG uses the unconference mode, that worked well

chaals:

strong preference not to overlap with web apps

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

due to gathering up view points, etc.

unconference mode has worked well, but if there are specific items, having it scheduled is productive

PLH: exact locationg TBC, but F2F will be in the Bay Area (Silicon Valley)

chaals: regarding unconference mode

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

but that we also look to run our own track

chaals: ensure that we communicate with Chairs to be sure we have good communication

PLH: does this mean this TF needs a seperate room>

chaals: not sure - exploring that possibility

Cyns: that may not be needed, at last TPAC we did not use/require

PLH: last F2F in Silicon Valley only used 1 room, and that seemed to work well

chaals: it seemed to work ok, however some of the HTML attendees where unhappy about that

depends on the topics

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

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 , such as the mandate that the TF now has to advance their own extensions as specs,, likely that having a seperate room for this TF have it's own room, at least part of the time

PLH: will ask the host about this, but it should be do-able - very little impact

cyns, perhaps 1 day seperate, one day with larger group

JF: +1 to cyns

ACTION on chairs to coordinate with HTML Chairs to ensure joint scheduling is correct at the April F2F

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find on. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/users>.

ACTION on Chaals to have TF chairs coor4dinate with HTML Chairs on scheduing for F2F in April

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find on. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/users>.

\/me oh never mind\

\/me oh never mind\

Outcome of CfC to publish longdesc as FPWD

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
... responded directly to Matt, so perhaps not best to comment, but chaals has a personal position and so may have conflict of interest

Judy: ... since I've not followed all of the list discussion, is there a response from Matt to Chaals' response to his initial objections?

<paulc> Link to the CFC, please?

<paulc> Aside, treat me like Rip van Winkle - away for 4 weeks.

stevef: not a huge fan of longedesc, but agree that this should continue to move forward

<chaals> http://www.w3.org/mid/CA+ri+VnNPq_DRiQjzm0+v5fDyGnNo5VqPVQWoAr8ukn-cchsBQ@mail.gmail.com -> Call for Consensus to request FPWD

as janina pointed out, is part of TF job to provide support and get this out to the WG

this is not a

<Judy> links to objection?

CFC is not whether you agree with longdesc, but rather if we should move forward on the tech spec

<chaals> http://www.w3.org/mid/CAFp5+ApBdj-htMGOZQpkChdFJ2Fe3vVrgntnksQ7+PWdaGUVOQ@mail.gmail.com -> objection to publishing from Matt Turvey

LjW: just to +1 as the voice of a user, until we have something better lets continue working with this

chaals: any ohter comment5s/thoughts?

<David> +1

PaulC: looking for the actual URL

chaals: pasted into IRC channel
... what we have is a handful of comments, along with a request to modify a specific example

<richardschwerdtfeger> copy that

chaals: so question is, is Matt's objection sufficient to stop progress, or should we continue to move forward noting Matt's objection

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

PaulC: generally agree with earlier comments re: technical details don't need to be finished to move forward

however in this case, sending this along to the Working Group will simply serve to resurface the same objections

so perhaps addressing each each point, and file bugs against each technical objection would be the way forward

chaals: replied to each objection as an individual

process -wise, the TF needs the WG "consent" to move forward, as the TF does not have mandate to final publication

Judy: many of the comments were never formally addressed by the TF, and only ever discussed on the list

perhaps this TF should split them out and formally address them

<paulc> Note that there is a patent policy implication on FPWD: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-exclusion-with

<paulc> This is at least one reason the associated WGs need to approve the publication.

JUdy: from my perspective, the better the record we have on how the TF responds to the issues, the stronger the "story" moving forward

PaulC: people cannot lose fact re: Patent Policy

the TF does not have the same responsabilities in that regard

so there are Process requirements for this to go through the WG

Chaals: agree that process is that HTML WG to be the formal group that publishes this

question over whether the WG has delegated the responsibility for publishing, and it appears not

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

<Stevef> +1 to pauls suggestion

PaulC: believes that original response answered the question: this TF should address all of the technical objections, and leave process objections to the WG

Judy: strongly suggest that this TF respond to technical items formally

this TF can respond to his objections, and get them on the record

cyns: agree with Judy - important that we have a formal record and deal with each item methodically and specirfically

also believe we should reach consensus within this group, and that the TF speak with one voice, even if we have divergent views internally

we own this, so we need to do a good job with it

chaals: straw pol on 2 questions: 1) should we identify all the process questions, and pass those directly to the HTML WG untouched.

<chaals> Proposal: We identify process issues in Matt's objection, and ask the HTML WG to deal with those questions

<LjW> +1

Cyns: we need to review each question and decide if we believe them to be process or technical

<Stevef> +1

+1

<IanPouncey> +1

<paulc> Paul abstains

<David> +1

<chaals> cyns: +1

(poll on passing process questions to WG)

chaals: any against?

<paulc> I need to go to the WG meeting.

<chaals> Proposal: We expect to resolve technical objections before requesting FPWD

<Stevef> -1

Chaals: 2) identify technical issues and raise bugs on them

<Stevef> to resolving every bug

Judy: but you need to respond on them as well?

<Stevef> " As a Working Draft publication, the document does not need not be complete, to meet all technical requirements, or to have consensus on the contents."

chaals: suggest that we propose to identify all technical comments

judy: we should also not just identify, and not necessarily resolve, but to respond to all of them
... we should do more than just what the process requires - that we should be on record with substantive responses at the TF

cyns: agree that we should also respond - some responses may be - yes, file a bug, or we disagree, or other

what is important is that we have a formal record, and responses to all issues

chaals: wrapping up

have started to file bugs where I have found an issue

the big question is, how much consensus do we need to move this forward to the WG

seems that the consensus is that until we identify all the technical issues we are not ready

so minimum bar is to identify which issues are technical versus process, and formally record them as such

we should however actually resolve the issues, not just identify them

MichaelC; there is a difference between resolving issues and addressing comments

judy: identification is one level, responding all is a second level, resolving is a thrid level

SteveF: what is meant by "respond"?

Judy: chaals has responded as an individual - does this TF accept those responsesas the voice of the TF?

<Judy> s/does this TF accept those respopnses as the voice of the TF?/the TF can consider those as draft responses, or amend or expand those/

<chaals> Provisional Resolution: We expect to agree on a task for response to each technical issue before requesting FPWD

Status of "alt" text in HTML (specification and usage in the document)

deferred to next meeting

<chaals> i/paul abstains/Provisional resolution: We will identify any process issues and request the HTML-WG to deal with them.

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: 148 to [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/29-html-a11y-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: chaals to follow up old action items and see which remain relevent [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/29-html-a11y-minutes.html#action02]
 
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.137 (CVS log)
$Date: 2012-11-29 18:03:21 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.137  of Date: 2012/09/20 20:19:01  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/(etc.)/, such as the mandate that the TF now has to advance their own extensions as specs,/
Succeeded: s/the list discussion/all of the list discussion/
Succeeded: s/respond to all/not just identify, and not necessarily resolve, but to respond to all/
Succeeded: s/respopnses /responses/
FAILED: s/does this TF accept those respopnses as the voice of the TF?/the TF can consider those as draft responses, or amend or expand those/
FAILED: i/paul abstains/Provisional resolution: We will identify any process issues and request the HTML-WG to deal with them.
Found Scribe: JF
Inferring ScribeNick: JF
Default Present: John_Foliot, Judy, chaals, leonie, Michael_Cooper, IanPouncey, [IPcaller], stevef, Cynthia_Shelly, David_MacDonald, Plh
Present: J_brewer MichaelC JFoliot CynthiaShelley RichS Leonie David_McDonald PaulC Ted_(Hober) SteveF
Regrets: Janina
Found Date: 29 Nov 2012
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/11/29-html-a11y-minutes.html
People with action items: 148 chaals

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.


[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]