HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

10 Sep 2015

See also: IRC log


JF, Joanmarie_Diggs, Judy, LJWatson, Liam, Rich_Schwerdtfeger, ShaneM, janina, plh


<trackbot> Date: 10 September 2015

<scribe> scribe: liam

[no changes to agenda]

JS: I believe we have a cfc that needs attention

[plh not here to talk to cfc]

JS: I think we have sufficient conformance in testing to move to PR, but that's the cfc question

so this wg should look at the cfc and respond

<janina> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2015Sep/0018.html

JS: on my read of the minutes it wasn't clear to me how we proposed to deal with this spec

Publishing a FPWD where the HTML WG would publish is problematic 'cos the HTML WG is about to close

Web Platform is the emerging new WG

Transcript seems a really good fit for the new Timed Media WG

and in scope for APA WG

so suggestion is to publish transcript as an HTML WG Note, to get enough status to go to timed media and say, why don't you take this up to rec track

JF: My recollection is that I asked for time to take a look at [the spec]

The original document from Charles left multiple options, and we need to narrow it down

big question is naming - got broad acceptance on the pattern

I think the political issues are a distraction; can we put this on pause & take it up at TPAC?

<Zakim> liam, you wanted to respond on process

<ShaneM> +! to what Liam said

JF: how hard is it to take up a note on to rec track?

Liam: very easy, and much harder to take up something that hasn't been published

JF: let's get it into something more formal

JS: I think it's clear & we have agreement that the document needs more work

question is, what to do with it at the moment to best shepherd it forward

we should do something before HTML WG closes

Note seems to make sense

LJWatson: I agree with John's assessment.

Given the timetable, this has been an ED for 4 or 5 months; waiting a few weeks isn't going to make much difference but might as well pause briefly

looks like TMWG

<Zakim> liam, you wanted to note we only have a few days to do a cfc

Liam: we should issue a cfc this week if possible, if we are intending a note

JF: [asks about PF vs APA ownership and FPWD vs Note]

JS: there's no APA yet

LJWatson: can't it just stay as an ED?

Shane: we went through this withanother WG and had to transition everything to a Note we wanted to work on later

HTML WG is going away

I hate wasting time on process stuff

JB: I wish it were more straightfoward

JS: meeting preference: leave as ED

<ShaneM> https://w3c.github.io/alt-techniques/

Shane: I made a pass through the latest draft

[mostly editorial]

<LJWatson> SM: Made a pass through of the doc, fixed grammatical things, references etc.

<LJWatson> LQ: I'm ok with this doc going forward.

<LJWatson> ... Would still like to see fewer examples, but that's a personal preference. Review from more people would be welcome.

<LJWatson> JS: From the URI Shane just posted?

<LJWatson> SM: Yes.

<LJWatson> ... This is a live doc. We're making edits. Do we want a review of a snapshot, or just note in the review request that it's a live doc?

<LJWatson> JF: A snapshot review makes sense.

<LJWatson> ... Reducing the number of examples concerns me. One of the strengths of the original was that it considered the different contexts for alt text. Removing examples makes it less useful.

<LJWatson> LQ: The idea is to have a shorter doc in the HTML spec, but not lose the examples completely. Also, there are multiple examples for the same issue.

<LJWatson> ... The spec is for developers not content authors.

<LJWatson> JF: The target audience for this isn't coders, it's content authors.

<LJWatson> ... There are hybrid dev/authors out there, but the power of Steve's original doc was it's usefulness to content authors.

<LJWatson> LQ: Please take a look at what's there and comment.

<LJWatson> ... The HTML spec is for coders. There is a tension there.

<LJWatson> JF: Agreed.

<LJWatson> LQ: The HTML spec needs to answer questions from coders, like "I'm writing code and need to know what the alt attribute does".

<LJWatson> ... Developers are the primary audience for the HTML spec, that's why this doc is changing.

<LJWatson> ... Have been saving all examples I've removed, so we can recreate the author guidance.

LJWatson: in terms of what we do with content no longer part of this doc, is that something we should hand over to EO?

JB: I think it'd be great to give them that opportunity

<LJWatson> LW: Perhaps the content authoring info that doesn't go into the HTML spec is something EO could work on?

<LJWatson> ... With PF and HTML WGs wrapping up at the end of this month, it would be good to have a caretaker for this authoring advice.

<LJWatson> JB: Moving it to EO but with a "hello" to WCAG would be ideal.

<LJWatson> JF: Agree with Judy's assessment.

<LJWatson> ... It is a long document. I understand the need to edit it down, but don't want to lose it.

<LJWatson> ... +1 to Léonie, let's ask EO to take ownership of it.

<LJWatson> JS: We should review the spec rewrite and comment, then make sure we don't lose the supplementary content.

<LJWatson> ... We can ask EO with a copy to WCAG, to suggest that the non HTML spec content could do with further development.

[the longer version is available at https://w3c.github.io/alt-techniques/with-pictures.html ]

<LJWatson> JB: I'll give them a heads up.

<LJWatson> JS: When this comes up on the agenda next, can we focus on comments on the spec text and not what happens to the other content. Thanks.

<scribe> scribenick: liam

JS: we're looking to organize a subteam from this TF or its successor

we're looking for facilitators

and workers on the document

I'm going to suggest two things now

1. we can ask - and I thin PF will follow through - setting up time at TPAC to discuss moving this forward

we know this work will continue & we have a model document

2. I will take on an action to strip the mower down

to make a power document

Took a while to get the document into its current status; other groups have said it was [useful]

ShaneM: I'm active in web payments and would like to work on it

JF: I'm working at finding someone from Deque

JS: we need Charles here for Access Key etc

JF: Charles, LJWatson and I did have a conversation with Dominic in July

and my understanding was that Dominic was going to implement it

JF: a commitment to do something, but don't know the status

<LJWatson> LW: Chaals was going to write up a provisional spec text, and Dominic was going to implement it in Chrome behind the flag.

LJWatson: no real progress, but this week we're starting quiet conversation with different browser companies

to get a sense of their impressions before going more broadly public

JS: any TPAC-related thoughts?

LJWatson: have not yet considered it; Charles, Steve and I will be there, don't know about Brian yet
... nothing to report, it's in limbo

open actions


cynthia - action 318 - Work with léonie on describing the extensions requested to web driver, and the motivation…

[agree coordination]

http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/330 JF to get the matrix to Shane

JS: I haven't done my part yet

but we need to close this soon

at some point if that matrix isn't updated it comes out of the draft

ShaneM: if it's more than 10 minutes you're doing it wrong

JF: there's more than 10 minutes, but i'll put it on my todo list

close action-331

<trackbot> Closed action-331.

[no more actions to discuss in this meeting]

[plh arrived]

Back to transcript

plh: my opinion is in order to increase the chances you'll get implementors' eyes on the doc publish as a WG Note

it can show up on WG home page, twitter, etc

as an ED it's just another doc on github

JF: what I'm hearing is publish it as a note

let's do that for now with clear understanding that it's a parking function until chartering & WGs settle down and we'll pick it up again in November

plh: you can put that in the Status of the doc too

JS: +1

Say it's our intent to go towards Rec but is a note temporarily, expecit it to be picked up by... etc

plh: not publishing would be a missed opportunity

JS: we should update the status so we have a static doc ready for a cfc

then I can come up with a cfc

<plh> http://chaals.github.io/html-transcript/html-transcript-src.html

decsion: issue cfc to publish that as a note; Liam will prepare the document


Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.140 (CVS log)
$Date: 2015/09/10 16:04:05 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.140  of Date: 2014-11-06 18:16:30  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/I disagree with John's assessment/I agree with John's assessment/
Succeeded: s/someone/someone from Dq/
Succeeded: s/Dq/Deque/
Succeeded: s/statu/status/
Found Scribe: liam
Inferring ScribeNick: liam
Found ScribeNick: liam
Default Present: janina, Joanmarie_Diggs, JF, Liam, LJWatson, Plh, Judy, Rich_Schwerdtfeger, ShaneM
Present: JF Joanmarie_Diggs Judy LJWatson Liam Rich_Schwerdtfeger ShaneM janina plh
Regrets: Chaals
Found Date: 10 Sep 2015
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2015/09/10-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]