See also: IRC log
<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
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/open
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
[adjourned]
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]