15:44:43 RRSAgent has joined #html-a11y
15:44:43 logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/01/30-html-a11y-irc
15:44:45 RRSAgent, make logs world
15:44:45 Zakim has joined #html-a11y
15:44:47 Zakim, this will be 2119
15:44:47 ok, trackbot; I see WAI_PFWG(HTML TF)10:00AM scheduled to start 44 minutes ago
15:44:48 Meeting: HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference
15:44:48 Date: 30 January 2014
15:45:00 agenda?
15:45:06 Meeting: HTML-A11Y Task Force Teleconference
15:45:06 Chair: Janina_Sajka
15:45:06 agenda+ Identify Scribe http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/index.php?title=Scribe_List
15:45:09 agenda+ Longdesc Update [See Below]
15:45:12 agenda+ Canvas 2D Followup
15:45:14 agenda+ Alt Guidance & Next Steps [See Below]
15:45:17 agenda+ Heartbeat Publications Prep [See Below]
15:45:19 agenda+ Any Remaining A11yTF Bugs?
15:45:22 agenda+ Bug Triage: Review of Resolved Bugs tracked by TF [see below]
15:45:24 agenda+ Other Business
15:45:27 agenda+ Identify Scribe for the next TF teleconference http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/index.php?title=Scribe_List
15:45:30 agenda+ be done
15:56:54 WAI_PFWG(HTML TF)10:00AM has now started
15:57:00 +??P4
15:57:06 zakim, ??P4 is me
15:57:06 +janina; got it
15:57:16 zakim, Janina has Janina_Sajka
15:57:16 +Janina_Sajka; got it
15:57:26 +Mark_Sadecki
15:57:27 zakim, take up item 1
15:57:28 agendum 1. "Identify Scribe http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/index.php?title=Scribe_List" taken up [from janina]
15:58:58 +[IPcaller]
15:59:04 zakim, [ip is me
15:59:04 +chaals; got it
16:00:16 +Adrian_Roselli
16:00:25 aardrian has joined #html-a11y
16:00:50 paulc has joined #html-a11y
16:01:04 +John_Foliot
16:01:11 zakim, who is here?
16:01:11 On the phone I see janina, Mark_Sadecki, chaals, Adrian_Roselli, John_Foliot
16:01:13 janina has Janina_Sajka
16:01:13 On IRC I see paulc, aardrian, Zakim, RRSAgent, chaals, Joshue, IanPouncey, MarkS, cabanier_, hober, janina, trackbot
16:01:54 zakim, what is the code?
16:01:55 the conference code is 2119 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), paulc
16:01:56 +[IPcaller]
16:02:13 jaymunro has joined #html-a11y
16:02:19 +[Microsoft]
16:02:21 davidb has joined #html-a11y
16:02:27 zakim, who is here?
16:02:27 On the phone I see janina, Mark_Sadecki, chaals, Adrian_Roselli, John_Foliot, [IPcaller], [Microsoft]
16:02:30 janina has Janina_Sajka
16:02:30 On IRC I see davidb, jaymunro, paulc, aardrian, Zakim, RRSAgent, chaals, Joshue, IanPouncey, MarkS, cabanier_, hober, janina, trackbot
16:02:33 zakim, [Microsoft] is me
16:02:33 +paulc; got it
16:02:44 +Cynthia_Shelly
16:03:05 zakim, [IP is Billy Gregory
16:03:05 I don't understand '[IP is Billy Gregory', MarkS
16:03:06 +[Microsoft]
16:03:10 zakim, microsoft has me
16:03:10 +jaymunro; got it
16:03:29 zakim, [IPcaller] is Billy Gregory
16:03:29 I don't understand '[IPcaller] is Billy Gregory', MarkS
16:04:59 scribe: Chaals
16:05:16 zakim, next agendum
16:05:16 agendum 2. "Longdesc Update" taken up [from See Below]
16:05:22 Topic: Longdesc update
16:06:13 richardschwerdtfeger has joined #html-a11y
16:06:33 CMN: we have some light editorial comments. Most are reasonable. Minor tweaks. Others overlap with past changes, so will likely not address those
16:06:50 ...Paul, results of CfC in WG?
16:06:51 JF has joined #html-a11y
16:06:54 I can't call in but I can monitor. I am in customer meetings.
16:07:13 PC: posted to list yesterday. 1 lamenter.
16:07:20 See CfC decision: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2014Jan/0072.html
16:07:26 ...otherwise positive feedback
16:07:29 PC: Result published yesterday. One objection, jsut reiterating old arguments, including "there will be a replacement real soon now" - and we have heard the "real soon" for five years or so...
16:07:35 … so it's on the Recommendation Track.
16:07:44 ...from the HTML WG's point of view, it is on the REC track
16:08:15 JS: PF got one objection reviewing old arguments, one abstention. Voted a resolution.
16:08:46 s/resolution/resolution on the teleconference. PF has approved having longdesc on the Rec track.
16:08:56 PF WG decision: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2014Jan/0077.html
16:10:30 CMN: So bottom line is Mark and I don't have more excuses of waiting for … and have to get the thing out :)
16:10:35 zakim, next item
16:10:35 agendum 3. "Canvas 2D Followup" taken up [from janina]
16:10:42 Topic: Canvas 2D followup.
16:11:07 +[IPcaller.a]
16:11:22 MS: Had subgroup meeting on Monday.
16:11:33 zakim, [ipcaller] is Bill_Gregory
16:11:33 +Bill_Gregory; got it
16:11:50 lwatson has joined #html-a11y
16:12:11 … We got some feedback yesterday from Mozilla who have raised some concrete concerns. Expect to talk about them Monday and see if we need to do more before we get consensus.
16:12:25 … Also looking at testing now.
16:12:33 … Looks like we have pretty good coverage for that.
16:12:50 zakim, [ip is Leonie
16:12:50 +Leonie; got it
16:13:34 JS: Getting implementor feedback that shows there is more discussion needed before we get consensus to go Last Call - but no problems for heartbeats.
16:13:56 PC: Sam and I understand teh subgroup is trying to dot the i's and cross the t's, but that's what LC / CR are for.
16:14:56 … I could understand if we expected to go LC to PR. I can live with what you're doing now, but we're only going to provide so much rope. You're trying to avoid going back to Last Call again, and we are not convinced that it is necesary to worry about that.
16:15:14 MS: OK, but want to make sure major implementors are at least basically satisfied before we get too far ahead.
16:15:39 PC: OK. But let's try to get the right people into the conversation - alternatively Sam and I think we can do that in Last Call.
16:16:07 MS; OK. Note that we said we expected to be here in Q1, and we think we're doing OK on that.
16:16:14 s/MS;/MS:/
16:16:33 PC: You also said end of Jan, and that is where we are...
16:16:50 JS: We sometimes get Mozilla in and sometimes they disappear. Is there anyone major missing?
16:17:06 +[IPcaller]
16:17:10 MS: Haven't heard from Apple at all - will check with hober…
16:17:21 zakim, who is on the phone?
16:17:21 On the phone I see janina, Mark_Sadecki, chaals, Adrian_Roselli, John_Foliot, Bill_Gregory, paulc, Cynthia_Shelly, [Microsoft], Leonie, [IPcaller]
16:17:23 janina has Janina_Sajka
16:17:23 [Microsoft] has jaymunro
16:17:24 zakim, [ip is steveF
16:17:25 +steveF; got it
16:17:32 hober is on IRC
16:17:51 MS: There are a couple of people RichS suggested. We'd like to hear from Apple too.
16:19:22 PC: Note that part of our concern is taht we expect to have another 60-day exclusion period stretching Last Call, so we expect that to be the long pole...
16:19:26 zakim, next item
16:19:26 agendum 4. "Alt Guidance & Next Steps" taken up [from See Below]
16:19:33 Topic: Alt Guidance
16:19:42 +David_MacDonald
16:20:14 JS: Think the guidance is pretty good at this point.
16:20:55 … I could live with what is there right now. The discussion about informing users of classes of images should maybe get picked up somewhere. Maybe add another article…
16:21:03 s/article/example/
16:21:23 … and a counter-example - don't say 'alt="logo"' without something else.
16:21:38 DM: We might want to file a bug to allow ARIA-* to replace alt...
16:21:42 JS: Perhaps…
16:21:44 q+
16:22:04 …don't think we want to try and push that back to 5.0 though
16:22:07 q?
16:22:15 CS: Yes, I think opening that discussion ehre would be counterproductive
16:22:24 CMN: Right.
16:22:30 SteveF has joined #html-a11y
16:22:30 ack me
16:22:51 David has joined #html-a11y
16:23:10 SF: Think I can wrap this within the next week, and get the bug resolved.
16:23:27 PC: It seems Janina's question is "what is needed to move this into 5.0"?
16:23:48 SF: As far as I know we mark the change as editorial, and so it gets moved into the next Working Draft for HTML 5.0
16:24:07 … if there is something more substantive we have to go through the Working Group.
16:24:14 … for formal approval.
16:24:35 rrsagent, make minutes
16:24:35 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/01/30-html-a11y-minutes.html David
16:24:50 PC: What's the 5.1 bug number, and how much of the alt guidance issue does this cover?
16:24:56 SF: This covers a single example.
16:25:09 It's bug 23207
16:25:14 PC: So is this editorial or not?
16:25:23 https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23207
16:25:28 … trying to understand the gameplan for the alt guidance material in general.
16:25:50 … If there are a raft of changes, are they still really editorial as a set?
16:26:36 … Trying to get a sense of the set of changes/bugs that the TF would like backported to 5.0 - I don't know that and don't know the schedule for it.
16:26:50 BillyGregory_ has joined #html-a11y
16:27:39 [Paul and Steve trying to get on the same page]
16:28:23 SF: The Lat guidance doc hasn't been updated for a year or so. Once we have it reflecting the guidance in the spec, it can become a Note or something. I ahve been concentrating on resolving the problem in the spec itself.
16:28:25 q+
16:28:44 PC: So you're making changes to 5.1 to replace the alt guidance document?
16:28:46 SF: Yep.
16:29:00 PC: What are the set of bugs that mandate those changes?
16:29:08 SF: Do you want a list of those bugs?
16:29:43 PC: I believe the answer to the question "is the set of changes made editorial overall" depends on the collection of changes made.
16:30:20 … we need to be transparent to say "with all these changes, the alt guidance document can go away". Is this bug part of that set of changes?
16:30:40 … If so, when we notify them that we make a change we should notify that the particular change is part of a broader set.
16:31:20 JS: Think when Steve feels we are done, and the TF feels we are done, with getting 5.1 to have good guidance, it is appropriate to tell the WG. There are significant changes involved overall.
16:31:44 … And I am not sure if everything was covered by a single bug.
16:31:47 q?
16:32:30 … Instead of Ian's old language focused on literary consistency, it is important to have the alt provide functionality. This has resulted in a bunch of changes and a fundamental shift.
16:32:51 +1 to what Janina is saying
16:33:00 q?
16:33:08 … But do agree that when we go to backport the changes to 5.0 we should be clear that there is a major rewrite of the section.
16:33:28 Q+
16:33:49 SF: 95% of the work has been done. The issue would have come up regardless of whether we were making the overall changes or not.
16:34:19 … stuff is progressively being ported back to 5.0 as we do this.
16:35:11 … I state what has been moved, but haven't been making the actual shifts.
16:35:30 … I'll find the emails that explained what I was going to do, before I started.
16:35:53 q?
16:35:56 … More generally, I haven't seen how merges into the CR have been communicated.
16:36:04 ack c
16:37:00 ack jf
16:37:07 CMN: Sounds like discussion has centered around the need to communicate to WG that there are significant changes. I think we need agreement
16:37:35 s/need agreement/should just agree that we will need to communicate the totality of the changes/
16:37:44 JF: Do we have a summary of the changes yet?
16:38:19 … The /concern/ is whether we are making a thousand little changes and somehow pretending that we're not doing anything significant
16:38:32 CS: We can do a diff and get the list of changes easily enough.
16:38:33 I suggest Steve simply add a unique keyword to the alt related bugs so that a Bugzilla search can be used to list the bugs related to fixing the alt guidance.
16:38:46 +1 to Paul's suggestion
16:38:54 JS: We decided to fix the spec first, then clarify what is happening.
16:38:59 In addition we could then use that set of changes/bugs to justify publishing the original WD of alt guidance as a Note.
16:39:54 PC: Just tag all the bugs with a keyword, and then get the list of bugs. Easier than creating a prose summary. When the TF is happy, we use those bugs as a rationale for publishing the alt guidance as a note.
16:40:37 … It would be very useful to communicate the larger set of changes we're working on, as we make the various incremental changes.
16:40:44 q+
16:41:36 ACTION: SteveF to produce a list of the bugs relating to the alt guidance changes
16:41:36 Created ACTION-228 - Produce a list of the bugs relating to the alt guidance changes [on Steve Faulkner - due 2014-02-06].
16:41:38 q?
16:42:03 q?
16:42:50 PC: Possible that about March HTML chairs will start soliciting input on at-risk features to be removed. So you want to get this finished and in quickly.
16:42:54 ack l
16:42:56 ack lw
16:43:19 LJW: We have used a11y_alt-text as a tag, so that saves inventing a new one.
16:43:26 SF: Lots have been tagged with that
16:43:29 q?
16:43:34 LJW: Yes, but there are bugs missing the tag.
16:43:40 zakim, next item
16:43:40 agendum 5. "Heartbeat Publications Prep" taken up [from See Below]
16:43:47 Topic: Heartbeat Publications
16:45:11 JS: Need a few more days to get PF agreement on Heartbeats - will probably take until Wednesday next week. Apologies for the delay.
16:45:16 PC: Which document?
16:45:27 zakim, agenda?
16:45:27 I see 6 items remaining on the agenda:
16:45:28 5. Heartbeat Publications Prep [from See Below via janina]
16:45:28 6. Any Remaining A11yTF Bugs? [from janina]
16:45:28 7. Bug Triage: Review of Resolved Bugs tracked by TF [from see below via janina]
16:45:28 8. Other Business [from janina]
16:45:28 9. Identify Scribe for the next TF teleconference http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/index.php?title=Scribe_List [from janina]
16:45:29 10. be done [from janina]
16:45:45 PC: 5.0, 5.1, polyglot and DOM LCs?
16:45:56 s/a11y_alt-text/a11y_text-alt/
16:45:57 JS: We don't have a horse in that race, so no worries.
16:46:31 [Turns out there was nothing to discuss here]
16:47:38 http://tinyurl.com/m3pvkqd for alt related bugs
16:48:13 PC: Hope I did the search correct for alt bugs. Problem is that it generates 121 bugs. Doubt that covers just the alt guidance material.
16:49:37 zakim, next item
16:49:37 agendum 6. "Any Remaining A11yTF Bugs?" taken up [from janina]
16:49:47 Topic: Remaining TF bugs?
16:50:05 Q+
16:50:10 LJW: Know we plan a revisit of bugs...
16:50:16 s/LJW/JS/
16:50:29 LJW: @@
16:50:42 https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?bug_status=RESOLVED&keywords=a11ytf&keywords_type=allwords&list_id=31694&product=HTML%20WG&resolution=NEEDSINFO&resolution=INVALID&resolution=WONTFIX
16:51:08 MS: These are bugs that we want to look through and check.
16:51:13 https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23284
16:52:15 [assigned to chaals]
16:52:49 https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20224
16:54:00 JS: Think this is a good idea...
16:54:06 SF: Something I have to look at.
16:54:12 … should be moved to 5.1
16:54:22 … won't be implemented in 5.0
16:54:36 RESOLUTION: Reopen bug 20224 on HTML 5.1
16:54:46 https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13728
16:55:37 SF: Looks like this has been fixed.
16:55:55 RESOLUTION: Close 13278
16:55:59 -[Microsoft]
16:56:06 Rationale: It's been fixed/overtaken
16:56:11 https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13666
16:57:50 [reading through the bug]
16:58:12 JS: ARIA will have sub-teams, one of which (EPUB) is coming rapidly. Think this is of high interest to them
16:58:15 +1 to aria epub's interest of this
16:58:28 SF: I closed this because I defined what should be done to reopen, and nobody did anything.
16:58:51 JS: Think the work might get done by the EPUB people who are coming into W3C to define this kind of work.
16:58:54 suggest reopening and adding a new tag - epub perhaps?
16:59:28 … DAISY would like HTML to have something defined for this.
16:59:36 … they are the people who want this fixed.
16:59:56 LJW: From HTML we should close this. If ARIA team take it, then it isn't an HTML bug…
17:00:07 -chaals
17:00:10 bye all
17:00:14 [chaals leaves]
17:00:19 -Cynthia_Shelly
17:00:19 -Leonie
17:00:20 -John_Foliot
17:00:23