IRC log of text on 2011-06-27

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:34:02 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #text
15:34:02 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:34:04 [judy]
agenda+ action item check
15:34:04 [judy]
agenda+ meta name=generator further discussion
15:34:04 [judy]
agenda+ longdesc, any new info on counter-proposals
15:34:04 [judy]
agenda+ figcaption, status check on re-open request, check on timing
15:34:04 [judy]
agenda+ table summary, draft to review?
15:34:04 [judy]
agenda+ location of alt guidance, draft to review?
15:34:06 [judy]
agenda+ other business?
15:34:09 [judy]
agenda+ confirm actions, timelines, next meetings; identify next scribe; adjourn.
15:34:29 [Zakim]
15:34:32 [Zakim]
15:34:33 [Zakim]
15:34:59 [Zakim]
15:35:25 [paulc_]
paulc_ has joined #text
15:35:36 [Zakim]
15:35:49 [janina]
janina has joined #text
15:36:00 [jfoliot]
jfoliot has joined #text
15:36:02 [judy]
zakim, ??P2 is Janina
15:36:04 [Zakim]
+Janina; got it
15:36:13 [paulc_]
zakim, who is on the call?
15:36:13 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Judy, [Microsoft], John_Foliot, Janina
15:36:24 [paulc_]
zakim, [Microsoft] has paulc
15:36:24 [Zakim]
+paulc; got it
15:36:30 [Zakim]
15:37:09 [Lynn_Holdsworth]
Lynn_Holdsworth has joined #text
15:38:02 [Leonie]
Leonie has joined #text
15:38:26 [Zakim]
15:38:45 [Zakim]
15:39:00 [jfoliot]
Scribe: JF
15:39:04 [judy]
zakim, IPcaller is Leonie
15:39:04 [Zakim]
+Leonie; got it
15:39:18 [judy]
zakim, take up first item
15:39:18 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'take up first item', judy
15:39:20 [jfoliot]
zakim, take up next agendum
15:39:20 [Zakim]
agendum 5. "Confirm actions, timelines, next meetings; identify next scribe" taken up [from janina]
15:39:38 [judy]
zakim, drop item 5
15:39:38 [Zakim]
agendum 5, Confirm actions, timelines, next meetings; identify next scribe, dropped
15:39:45 [judy]
zakim, take up next agendum
15:39:45 [Zakim]
agendum 6. "action item check" taken up [from judy]
15:40:12 [Zakim]
15:40:21 [jfoliot]
JB: Asking if there are any action items report this week?
15:40:32 [jfoliot]
else will likely re-visit items this week
15:40:37 [Zakim]
15:40:48 [paulc_]
zakim, [Microsoft] has paulc
15:40:48 [Zakim]
+paulc; got it
15:40:59 [judy]
zakim, take up next agendum
15:40:59 [Zakim]
agendum 7. "meta name=generator further discussion" taken up [from judy]
15:41:11 [jfoliot]
zakim, next agendum item
15:41:11 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'next agendum item', jfoliot
15:41:26 [jfoliot]
JB: metagenerator issue
15:41:39 [jfoliot]
there are some people on this call to discuss
15:43:02 [jfoliot]
JF: Lief had requested the issue to be re-opened, and has submitted a CP to the Chairs
15:43:44 [paulc_]
15:43:51 [paulc_]
Look at the second item in the table.
15:43:51 [jfoliot]
JB: looking for a link to Leif's CP
15:44:11 [richardschwerdtfe]
richardschwerdtfe has joined #text
15:44:48 [jfoliot]
PC: Chairs considering this item under development
15:45:12 [Zakim]
15:45:31 [jfoliot]
JB: Leif has submitted a draft for a Change Proposal
15:45:46 [jfoliot]
PC: surprised that the Chairs do not have this on their action list
15:45:58 [jfoliot]
is investigating and will follow up
15:46:12 [jfoliot]
JB: is what Leif submitted sufficient for re-opening the issue?
15:46:26 [jfoliot]
PC: Not sure, needs to coordinate with other Chairs
15:46:46 [jfoliot]
JB: if we have not supplied enough information, could we be advised so that this team can supply that?
15:46:57 [jfoliot]
unclear if the right information is there to re-open the request
15:47:04 [jfoliot]
PC: done
15:47:54 [jfoliot]
JB: if it also seems that if there is sufficient info to re-open, it seems we should have another round of ccordination with leif
15:48:24 [jfoliot]
not sure when actions get "activiated" by Chairs (Q to PC)
15:48:54 [jfoliot]
PC: will check to see what other chairs remember, to see what the chairs said
15:49:26 [jfoliot]
JB: is there anything else to discuss here?
15:49:52 [jfoliot]
If we hear back from chairs that they are ready to consider who might be interested to take a second look?
15:50:15 [jfoliot]
anyone besides John prepared to do a review? don't believe we have a consensus report from this sub-group
15:50:45 [jfoliot]
with next week's Monday holiday, pushes this to 2 weeks out
15:50:45 [judy]
zakim, who's here?
15:50:45 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Judy, John_Foliot, Janina, Michael_Cooper, Lynn_Holdsworth, Leonie, [Microsoft], Rich_Schwerdtfeger
15:50:48 [Zakim]
[Microsoft] has paulc
15:50:49 [Zakim]
On IRC I see richardschwerdtfe, Leonie, Lynn_Holdsworth, jfoliot, janina, paulc_, RRSAgent, judy, Zakim
15:51:00 [jfoliot]
JS: I think we were waiting for cleaned up language, but will review
15:51:29 [jfoliot]
JB: checking if anyone else can volunteer to look at language
15:51:38 [jfoliot]
LW: will sign up for that, but coming to issue new
15:52:04 [judy]
zakim, take up next agendum
15:52:05 [Zakim]
agendum 8. "longdesc, any new info on counter-proposals" taken up [from judy]
15:52:11 [jfoliot]
JB: wait to see what PC has to say, and then we can go from there
15:52:19 [jfoliot]
15:52:35 [jfoliot]
JB: there are 2 counter proposals that came in late last week
15:52:47 [jfoliot]
1 from Jonas the other from Matthew
15:53:01 [jfoliot]
asking PC what the process of handling this now
15:53:19 [jfoliot]
PC: preference would be to have some discussion on the List to discuss the merits before the survey
15:53:53 [paulc_]
The chairs are NOT going to survey the longdesc alternate proposals right away.
15:54:06 [paulc_]
We would recommend discuss on the email list.
15:54:36 [paulc_]
So I would suggest that the TF might either do that or analyze the counter proposals and then provide feedback.
15:54:59 [jfoliot]
JB: it appears we need to do both
15:55:06 [jfoliot]
starting with analysis of counter proposals
15:55:11 [paulc_]
For example think of what you would say about the counter proposals in a survey and provide that feedback on the email list ASAP.
15:55:18 [jfoliot]
we had some discussion prior to Jonas' submission
15:55:27 [jfoliot]
around some of the issues around his approach
15:55:54 [judy]
15:56:08 [jfoliot]
has anyone had an opportunity to review and is there anything new se did not anticipate
15:56:13 [jfoliot]
15:56:14 [judy]
15:56:27 [judy]
15:57:07 [jfoliot]
JB: w.r.t. Jonas' proposal, is there much difference between what we expected, versus what is submitted
15:57:31 [jfoliot]
ack JF
15:58:27 [judy]
jf: looking at jonas' proposal, seems mostly what we anticipated, 2 key things unaddressed: 1) consumption on demand, y/n; and 2) aria describedby doesn't pass through... not a focusable item
15:58:42 [jfoliot]
JB: any other coments?
15:59:20 [paulc_]
How did he respond to the first (comsumption onf demand) item?
15:59:21 [jfoliot]
the first one has been raised as a question on the public list last week, bu tthe second one has not come up prior to last thursday
15:59:26 [jfoliot]
JF: correct
15:59:50 [jfoliot]
JB: when the concerns were raised, what was Jonas' response - he didn't believe what the evidence was?
16:00:16 [jfoliot]
JS: he did not respond right away - he did respond but Matt had jumped in earlier
16:00:32 [jfoliot]
it was fairly late - almost just before he submitted his proposal
16:00:49 [jfoliot]
JB with encouragement from the Chairs, hopefully we will get more discussion on this
16:01:05 [jfoliot]
JB: w.r.t. the second issue, can Rich rais thta on the main list
16:01:18 [paulc_]
Can you give me the link to the thread on the public list?
16:02:21 [jfoliot]
RS: what the issue is - what the user agents do is supply a description, basicly a string
16:02:49 [jfoliot]
however they should be able to
16:03:20 [paulc_]
Chairs "plan" was to encourage discussion on longdesc on the list.
16:04:54 [jfoliot]
RS: if the user agent follows the relationship, and it takes it to a section of the page, then html-rich content should be active
16:05:42 [jfoliot]
Rich reviewing the API mappings
16:06:12 [janina]
Here's the URI for head of thread of the opening discussion with Jonas as requested from this group:
16:06:13 [janina]
16:07:44 [jfoliot]
If the text is visible on screen, then it preserves the html-richness
16:07:55 [jfoliot]
but if it is off-screen then it becomes flat text
16:07:56 [paulc_]
Is this limitation identified in the message 0204.html on the public list?
16:07:59 [jfoliot]
JF: that is the issue
16:08:17 [janina]
No, not this issue
16:08:47 [jfoliot]
RS: If you want this text to be rich, you need to be able to navigate
16:13:09 [paulc_]
Jonas's reply to 0204.html is in
16:13:58 [paulc_]
16:14:06 [jfoliot]
JF's response to Jonas' email (noted by Paul above):
16:14:52 [jfoliot]
PC: Just posted Jonas' reply of June 20th - saying that he didn't respond is misleading - he did respond
16:15:01 [paulc_]
16:15:50 [jfoliot]
JB: Sems there may be an opportunity to follow up with Jonas thoughtfully and constructivelyq+
16:15:56 [jfoliot]
16:16:21 [jfoliot]
16:16:23 [jfoliot]
ack JF
16:16:44 [jfoliot]
JB: are people under the impression that further disucssion will not go any further?
16:16:49 [paulc_]
16:17:17 [jfoliot]
PC: if you look at Jonas' change it seems that the input is being taken in
16:17:27 [jfoliot]
can't say for sure, but it is possible
16:18:53 [paulc_]
Is one possibility now that Jonas has supplied his CP is to re-state the items from janina's orginal email + items mentioned today in response to the CP which arrived on Sat.
16:19:17 [jfoliot]
JB: want to make sure we are not just doing an exercise, but keep hearing that 2 main requirements are not being address, and very little possibility to address thm in Jonas' proposal
16:19:29 [jfoliot]
ideally focus on those, and not other issues
16:19:33 [paulc_]
16:19:39 [jfoliot]
does anyone disagree?
16:19:49 [richardschwerdtfe]
16:20:20 [paulc_]
Respond to his CP with the old + new points as required.
16:20:40 [paulc_]
No cell coverage
16:20:42 [jfoliot]
JB: concern is that they address the edges but no the core
16:20:49 [paulc_]
"at the lake"
16:21:11 [jfoliot]
JB: so JF can take a look and respond
16:21:25 [paulc_]
I will report to the Chairs that the TF/sub-team wants time to engage here.
16:21:30 [jfoliot]
asking Paul given the tentative plan to ask for further discussion, andy idea of time-line?
16:21:35 [richardschwerdtfe]
16:21:39 [paulc_]
We are meeting later today and I will give you written feedback/
16:21:48 [judy]
16:21:56 [jfoliot]
JB: want's to discuss the Zero Change proposal
16:22:09 [jfoliot]
have reviewed it briefly and question some of the assertions
16:22:26 [Zakim]
16:22:27 [jfoliot]
not sure what is gained in this proposal, given the immense amount of work done
16:23:08 [jfoliot]
JB: am puzzling over what would be gained by talking this over, outside of apparently we need to
16:23:59 [judy]
s/done/done particularly by laura in her proposal, that are supported by the task force
16:25:50 [jfoliot]
JB: there are a few questions I would want to follow up with with Paul and Janina later today
16:25:55 [jfoliot]
prior to chairs call
16:26:27 [jfoliot]
it seems it would be challenging to review a lot of mis-information
16:26:48 [jfoliot]
there are 3 different questions: interacting whith Jonas to see if there is some distance that can be closed,
16:27:15 [jfoliot]
we could go a different question and ask that the Chairs just call the question
16:27:24 [jfoliot]
how much support does Jonas have?
16:27:42 [judy]
s/a different question/a different direction/
16:29:38 [jfoliot]
JB: we likely need to manage discussion here
16:29:56 [jfoliot]
JS: I think we are confusing time-lines here
16:30:35 [jfoliot]
and with more discussion we may be able to get Jonas to back down, but the Matt's proposal is likely all religious
16:32:41 [jfoliot]
JB: there is Jonas' proposal, there is matt's proposal, and there is laura's proposal
16:32:55 [jfoliot]
given that we have a bit of time and I want to re-check on
16:33:37 [jfoliot]
laura's proposal might still have some areas that need re-tweaking - if we have extra time we should spend it there
16:33:50 [jfoliot]
laura has indicated that she is ope to such
16:33:57 [jfoliot]
16:34:16 [jfoliot]
w.r.t. the description of ARIA
16:34:26 [jfoliot]
16:34:39 [jfoliot]
ack paulc
16:35:02 [jfoliot]
ack rich
16:36:41 [jfoliot]
16:38:22 [jfoliot]
JB: not hearing that continued discussion is not useful
16:40:01 [judy]
zakim, take up next agendum
16:40:01 [Zakim]
I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, judy
16:40:05 [jfoliot]
ack jf
16:40:09 [judy]
zakim, take up next agendum
16:40:09 [Zakim]
agendum 9. "figcaption, status check on re-open request, check on timing" taken up [from judy]
16:40:32 [jfoliot]
JB: on figcaption, there are parts of a Change Proposal being gathered up
16:40:43 [jfoliot]
Pretty sure that Geoff Freed can assist
16:41:09 [jfoliot]
but the other piece is writing up a description of how a warning would work
16:41:18 [Zakim]
16:41:40 [jfoliot]
the heuristic measure that if figcaption exceeds X number of characters...
16:41:50 [jfoliot]
however writing up the description of how that would work
16:42:26 [jfoliot]
JS: think it is a fairly simple issue
16:42:48 [jfoliot]
JB: takes that as a volunteer action from Janina
16:42:53 [judy]
16:42:57 [jfoliot]
that makes Judy, Geoff and Janina
16:43:18 [jfoliot]
this is assigned to Josh and katie
16:43:25 [jfoliot]
neither are on calls
16:43:42 [jfoliot]
JS: Katie may be off line for a few days due to health issues
16:43:52 [jfoliot]
Josh not coming up with more new evidence
16:43:57 [jfoliot]
16:44:03 [judy]
16:44:53 [judy]
JF: might be something coming up on table summary
16:44:55 [jfoliot]
JS: Can we maybe get longdesc to apply to tables?
16:46:00 [jfoliot]
JB: w.r.t. table summary, I believed we had a clear rationale for re-opening
16:46:14 [jfoliot]
JS: we disagree with the decision that it wasn't being used
16:46:26 [jfoliot]
we discussed enhanced alternatives, including heuristics
16:46:57 [jfoliot]
JB: 2 very different tasks. Better elaborate the use-cases, and the second is to improve the mechanisms
16:47:14 [jfoliot]
katie was looking at the second part,correct?
16:47:23 [jfoliot]
JS: Katie is new to this discussion
16:47:36 [jfoliot]
it was Wendy Chisholm who looked at this a year ago
16:47:54 [jfoliot]
JB: who would be good at writing up use-case for this?
16:47:57 [judy]
zakim, who's here?
16:47:57 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Judy, John_Foliot, Janina, Michael_Cooper, Lynn_Holdsworth, Rich_Schwerdtfeger
16:48:00 [Zakim]
On IRC I see richardschwerdtfe, Leonie, Lynn_Holdsworth, jfoliot, janina, RRSAgent, judy, Zakim
16:48:06 [jfoliot]
JS: Gregory had suggested to move this to an element
16:49:05 [jfoliot]
JB: re: the use-case
16:49:49 [jfoliot]
if @summary was rejected because it was deemed un-necessary, then a new way of doing this won't change things
16:50:03 [jfoliot]
wondering if Leonie might help define the use-cases for that
16:50:07 [jfoliot]
for why it is needed
16:50:20 [janina]
Chairs Table Summary decision at:
16:50:22 [janina]
16:50:32 [jfoliot]
JB: willing to follow up with Leonie
16:50:42 [Laura]
Laura has joined #text
16:52:06 [jfoliot]
JB: suggestions for next steps?
16:52:34 [jfoliot]
JB: need some help for mechanisms
16:52:48 [jfoliot]
Lynn: could help with use-cases
16:52:57 [jfoliot]
JB: consider yourself included
16:54:16 [judy]
16:54:28 [Zakim]
16:54:36 [Zakim]
16:54:40 [judy]
zakim, close item 9
16:54:40 [Zakim]
I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, judy
16:54:53 [richardschwerdtfe]
I have to drop folks
16:54:54 [richardschwerdtfe]
16:55:35 [jfoliot]
16:55:37 [jfoliot]
16:55:39 [jfoliot]
I would like to present new info regarding @summary. And hope for your evaluation of whether this - provided I submit a change proposal - could be enough to have the case reopened. The Decision spoke about the ARIA momentum. But actual tests shows that it takes time. As an example, the Textile editor added support for @summary only the autumn 2010. [1]
16:55:41 [jfoliot]
16:55:42 [jfoliot]
For @longdesc, then one of the arguments are time based: *currently* ARIA does not work. And based on new data (see below), the same argument can be used about @aria-* for <table> too. Hence, a time based use case - time is needed to properly depreacte @summary.
16:55:44 [jfoliot]
A time based argument can also be made when it comes to authoring tools. I believe none of the browser based WYSIWYG editors support aria attributes. Currently, at least one CMS tool has removed one instance of @summary in order to be HTMl5 compliant, but did not in the same go replace it with anything else. [2]
16:55:46 [jfoliot]
16:55:47 [jfoliot]
When running some ATs through a test page [3], I found that aria-label, aria-labelledby and aria-describedby for non-void elements are not read by VoiceOver and Jaws. (Or, I guess more accurately: they only support these attributes for elements which have role=img.) With regard to NVDA, then it varies: it does not use these aria attributes for the table element when used with IE. But when...
16:55:52 [jfoliot]
...used with Firefox 5, then it seems to read them. (Note: Fore IE, then I have only access to IE8.)
16:55:53 [richardschwerdtfe]
richardschwerdtfe has left #text
16:55:54 [jfoliot]
In contrast, the support for @summary is much better - supported by nearly all ATs. [3]
16:55:56 [jfoliot]
16:55:58 [jfoliot]
* @summary would be useful in addition to aria-describedby due to the lacking support for aria-describedby. (See NEW FINDINGS below.) @summary is not relevant for <IMG> because AT have much better support for aria-describedby on the IMG element than they have on the TABLE element. I suppose even canvas may have good aria support due to the fact that it often is used for non-texts and and is...
16:56:02 [Zakim]
16:56:03 [jfoliot]
...generally known to be A11Y challenged.
16:56:05 [jfoliot]
* Identification of specific operational problems with the aria-describedby attribute that make it not able to be programmatically determined or suitable for use as a table summary: Though only one AT currently implements it [2], the caption should be read before the summary/description, since the caption is the name and the name should be presented before the description. However, generally, if a
16:56:10 [jfoliot]
ria-describedby is attached to an element, then whatever it points to will be read before the content of the element itself is read.
16:56:13 [jfoliot]
Therefore, AT needs to special case <table> (and <figure>) in order to read their captions before the description.
16:56:16 [jfoliot]
* Tool vendors vs @summary vs @aria-describedby
16:56:18 [jfoliot]
16:56:21 [jfoliot]
[2] [0]
16:56:22 [jfoliot]
16:56:25 [jfoliot]
16:57:04 [jfoliot]
JB: is it possible to have something in 2 weeks?
16:57:12 [judy]
judy: can there be a draft proposal on table summary in 2 weeks?
16:57:22 [jfoliot]
Lynn: will try to do this
16:57:31 [jfoliot]
JS: will do introductions
16:57:37 [judy]
zakim, close item 10
16:57:37 [Zakim]
agendum 10, table summary, draft to review?, closed
16:57:38 [Zakim]
I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
16:57:40 [Zakim]
9. figcaption, status check on re-open request, check on timing [from judy]
16:57:44 [judy]
16:57:54 [Zakim]
16:58:18 [judy]
zakim, close item 9
16:58:18 [Zakim]
I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, judy
16:58:25 [jfoliot]
JB: a few follow ups coming on the longdesc proposals
16:58:49 [jfoliot]
JB: Michael any progress on location of alt guidance?
17:00:18 [jfoliot]
JB: will presume that people will not be available next week (July 4th)
17:00:27 [jfoliot]
next meeting will be in 2 weeks then
17:00:41 [jfoliot]
next week's cribe will be rich
17:00:41 [Zakim]
17:00:54 [judy]
17:02:03 [Laura]
Have to go. Need to help a student.
17:02:08 [Laura]
Laura has left #text
17:02:22 [jfoliot]
JB: reviewing to-do's
17:03:08 [jfoliot]
JB; wrapping up call
17:03:19 [Zakim]
17:03:20 [Zakim]
17:03:25 [Zakim]
17:03:38 [janina]
scribenic: janina
17:03:44 [janina]
zakim, bye
17:03:44 [Zakim]
leaving. As of this point the attendees were Judy, John_Foliot, Janina, paulc, Michael_Cooper, Lynn_Holdsworth, Leonie, Rich_Schwerdtfeger, Laura_Carlson
17:03:44 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #text
17:03:44 [judy]
zakim, who's here?
17:03:50 [janina]
rrsagent, make log public
17:03:59 [janina]
rrsagent, make minutes
17:03:59 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate janina
18:12:09 [janina]
janina has left #text