W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > September 2010

[minutes] HTML-A11Y Media Subteam on 29 September

From: Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 09:23:59 -0400
To: "'HTML Accessibility Task Force'" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-Id: <E1P1J7P-0002t6-3K@bart.w3.org>
Minutes available at: http://www.w3.org/2010/09/29-html-a11y-minutes.html
Copy also included below.

[2nd half of meeting was logged to 
http://www.w3.org/2010/09/29-html-a11y-irc ; log was patched later 
with first half from channel]

Session Start: Wed Sep 29 18:05:50 2010
Session Ident: #html-a11y
* Topic is 'HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference 2010-07-08 
at 1500h UTC'
chair: John_Foliot
present: Sean Hayes, Kenny Johar, John Foliot, Judy Brewer, Frank Olivier
regrets: Janina, Silvia, Eric
scribe: Judy

agendum 1. "agenda review, scribe id" taken up
reviewed agenda
brewer scribing

agenda+ action item review
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/open

agendum 4. "WCAG Mapping Update -- Sean" taken up [from Judy]
jf: what are next steps on WCAG mapping update
...seems like there may be some gaps
sh: unclear what gaps?
jf: where items don't directly align w/ WCAG A, or AA, or AAA
sh: [missed]
jf: issue of time-stamp endorsement...
...is this ready to circulate beyond the media subteam?
sh: I was supposed to follow up on bugs to add, from last week, that 
relate to this table
<jf>Checklist link: 
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_Accessibility_Checklist#Technical_Requirements_Prioritizations_and_Dependencies
<sean> I was saying that + indicates goes beyond wcag, but is 
drilling down on the technical details
jf: what happened with the discussion about getting the bugs in place 
including wrt the time-stamping question
jb: it was taken up with the html wg co-chairs; there was some 
back-and-forth on that; i would need to look at the bottom of the 
thread to confirm current status.
...i will check with Janina and/or Sam.
jb: where in doubt, get the bugs filed now. they don't have to be in 
perfect shape to file get the bugs filed by deadline. they can be 
refined later.
jf: sean can you file?
sh: probably not, but enough info in my mail so that someone else can.
jf: i'll file them.
jb: thx. pls do. pls also send mail back to media subteam confirming 
and giving links. thx.
jf: will do.
..if redundant, can remove later.
jb: think that there's understanding about the need to elaborate some 
of the bugs later.
logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/09/29-html-a11y-irc
all: initial look through of sean's mapping to wcag 2 a, aa, aaa
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_Accessibility_Checklist#Technical_Requirements_Prioritizations_and_Dependencies
jb: pls remind me the source of the must/should/may
jf: my informal review
jb: then the wcag 2 mapping should have more authority
jf: but may not be sufficient to address the importance for media
sh: my sense as well is that because we're dealing with increased 
granularity here, the results may be different
jf: is there some validity with my gut reaction must/should/may assignments?
...sean did my mappings make sense to you?
sh: i didn't focus on that a lot, and a fair amount of it looked on target
jf: frank how did this look?
fo: i'll comment if I see something
kj: i'll review it as well
jf: straw poll yet?
jb: hmmm....
jb: what's the plus?
sh: it means going beyond wcag 2 at least in granularity....
jb: and the "tbd" -- would discussion here benefit?
sh: derived from uaag
jb: thoughts about time-sensitive coordination; could coordinate also 
w/ jeanne spellman and kelly ford if jim allan is not available
jb: could we be missing bugs on this
jf: good question
sh: wouldn't that be their responsibility?
jb: on this timeframe, need to work with them on this
jf: will getting the placeholder text in place help?
jb: might
jf: if text comes in after oct 1, we should be able to file bugs 
against new text should be able to come in by then
... to be clear, that is what i'm proposing...
jb: suggests that jf checks w/ janina
jb: on the mapping, let's nail down the follow-ups w/ uawg
jf: i will
jb: what else would accelerate this?
sh: next stage would be putting columns into the table to indicate 
support for the granular requirements
jb: what about that straw poll that john was suggesting, maybe 
proceed on that afterall?
jf: yes would help vet the must/should/mays
sh? jf? : and we need the uaag input
jf: can do a straw poll before TF meeting tomorrow
jb: let's keep it moving, great
jb: how get those in place?
jf: two urgent things: straw poll on snapshot of must/should/may, and 
bug filing by friday
jb: could we plan how to get the formats in place
sh: i could plug in ttml
jb: would be good to have a model
jf: concerned about not biasing with one sample
sh: new pages for each format
jb: wondering if we lose an opportunity to open-mindedly cross-compare
sh: wiki table is hard to work w/; perhaps condensed cross-ref table?
sh: might work
jf: might work
jf: so we create a number of new pages
sh: could create the page, may not get all the detail in
... may leave out the sections where there are gaps
jf: i'll create the cross-ref page
sh: might be difficult to show all the gaps
...focus tables on text format
JF: are there any other concerns that need to be addressed today
action: jb will review threads on getting spec text in
confirming that we're meeting next week, and the following
we may have gaps the week after next
WAI_PFWG(A11Y 
Received on Thursday, 30 September 2010 13:24:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:14 UTC