W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > May 2011

Minutes - [text] SubTeam teleconference call of May 16, 2011

From: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 15:35:14 -0700 (PDT)
To: "'HTML Accessibility Task Force'" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-ID: <048101cc1419$864a3590$92dea0b0$@edu>
Friends,

The Minutes from today's teleconference call can be found here:
http://www.w3.org/2011/05/16-text-minutes.html 

...or in plain text immeadiately after this announcement. As is always the
case, corrections and comments should be posted to this list.

JF

*********

- DRAFT -

SV_MEETING_TITLE

16 May 2011

See also: IRC log (http://www.w3.org/2011/05/16-text-irc) 
Attendees
Present
Regrets
Chair
SV_MEETING_CHAIR
Scribe
Leonie_Watson, JF
Contents
Topics 
Reminder of clarification, new information and change proposal advice
Confirm consensus decision on last Thursday's poll
Longdesc
Meta generator
Figcaption
Responses to the survey
Summary of Action Items



<Stevef> am on client call so unable to attend the meet

<Stevef> regrets

<janina>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Apr/0417.html ,

<janina>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Apr/0421.html ,

<janina>
http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html#change-propos
al, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011May/0000.html

<janina> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/notitle

<janina> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/InstateLongdesc

<janina> consensus if ready

<janina> unresolved/unrestored accessibility features

<Leonie_Watson> Scribe: Leonie_Watson
Reminder of clarification, new information and change proposal advice

JS: As we work to get more appropriate support for accessibility, we need
to point at what in our proposals is new evidence, and provide as much of
a spec ready text as we can.
Confirm consensus decision on last Thursday's poll

JS: This has happened. More news to follow.

<JF> ask ste

SF: Lief has also submitted a change proposal.

JS: Steve, have you locked the wiki pag yet?

SF: No, will do that now.
Longdesc

JS: The question is whether this proposal is ready to be submitted with
the backing of the TF.

JF: Are you asking that of the people on this call?

<JF> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/InstateLongdesc

<gfreed> +1

<Stevef> +1

<JF> +1

<janina> +1

+1

<gfreed> =1

<gfreed> =1

<gfreed> =1

<judy> +1

<gfreed> stuffing the ballot box.

<richardschwerdtfe> +1

<LynnH> +1

<JF> JF will record Joshue O'Connor +1

<LynnH> +1 for Marco Ranon

<JF> +1 for Laura Carlson

JS: It looks unanimous for the people on the call/IRC.

JB: I need to keep focused on a meeting here, but wanted to drop in
briefly.

JS: We were discussing the role of sub groups in making recommendations on
behalf of the TF.

JB: Unless there is an adjustement to either the timeline, the process, or
the definition of last call, that even with the consensus position nothing
will be happening before the last call draft.
... Would anyone be willing to make a formal objection if the situation
requires it?

<janina> I was suggesting we can also look at wg support for formal
requests

JB: Who might support a formal objection on longdesc not being restored in
the last call working draft if it goes forward?

<LynnH> +1

JS: So of those who agreed with the change proposal (above), who would be
supportive of a formal objection?

<gfreed> +1

RS: Which longdesc are you referring to? The one in the change proposal or
the one in HTML4?

JB: The one in the change proposal (Laura's change proposal).

<janina> The meeting is now testing whether there is present consensus to
support a formal objection escalation should it appear that HTML last call
is to be published without the longdesc as in our supported proposal

<janina> +1

<JF> +1

+1

JOC: Well put, exactly.

<judy> +1

<JF> Joshue O'Connor = +1

<LHSilli> +1

<gfreed> +1

RS: I support this proposal, but if it doesn't go through I think we can
approach it with ARIA.
... Abstention.

<JF> BTW, Paul Cotton's note: Last Call decision poll:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011May/0163.html

JB: Am I assuming it's ok to represent this position on a formal objection
on behalf of the TF?

RS: I would say you have the majority, so yes.

JB: I don't think the WG has an expidited process, although the W3C does.

*General discussion about the wording of the resolutions.

<JF> me/ Resolution: The Task Force supports a Formal Objection escalation
should it appear that HTML last call is to be published without the
longdesc as in our supported proposal

<Stevef> +1

+1

<gfreed> +1

<janina> +1

<LynnH> +1

<JF> Resolution: The Task Force supports the Issue 30 Change Proposal at:
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/InstateLongdesc

<judy> +1

<JF> RESOLUTION: The Task Force supports the Issue 30 Change Proposal at:
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/InstateLongdesc

<JF> scribe: JF

RESOLUTION: The Task Force supports the Issue 30 Change Proposal at:
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/InstateLongdesc

<Leonie_Watson> RESOLUTION: The Task Force supports the Issue 30 Change
Proposal at:

<Leonie_Watson>
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/InstateLongdesc

<Leonie_Watson> JB: No-one knows what will happen with the last call, so
even without accessibility the timeline could drift. We should try to keep
things moving.

RESOLUTION: The Task Force supports a Formal Objection escalation should
it appear that HTML last call is to be published without the longdesc as
in our supported proposal

<Leonie_Watson> JS: Anything else from the technological or process point
of view on this?
Meta generator

<Stevef> me/ got ot go see you all later

<Leonie_Watson> JF: I haven't been able to get anything into the wiki, but
it's on my agenda this week.
Figcaption

<Leonie_Watson> JS: Steve isn't here, so we can't do much here.
Responses to the survey

<Leonie_Watson> JS: The oll announced this morning about taking the
documents to llast call.

Last Call decision poll:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011May/0163.html

<Leonie_Watson> JS: We should look at the survey they're running and check
if there are any responses from the group.

<Leonie_Watson> JS: I'm willig to cut the specs some slack for new
technologies, but that the things we have agreed on should be repressented
properly.

<Leonie_Watson> JS: The things that have been there since HTML4 and that
have not been resolved now are really core.

<Leonie_Watson> RS: If the situation with longdesc likely to cause a
problem then?

<Leonie_Watson> JF: They've agreed to open the issue.

<Leonie_Watson> RS: Regarding canvas, they put my changes in but there are
editorial things I still need to look at.

<Leonie_Watson> JS: When it comes to the stuff that's new in HTML5 (and
there's a lot that's new), the world will cut some slack. The angst has
come from those areas that aren't new.

<Leonie_Watson> RS: What we have for longdesc in our change proposal has
much more value than longdesc in HTML4.

<Leonie_Watson> RS: Why some things are singled out over others is
uncertain, but there you go!

JF picks up scribing

scribeL JF

JS: seems we are closing in to the end of the call anyway

are there any other topic concerns? outstanding questions? any other
business?

looking for a scribe for next week? volunteers?

Janina volutneers to be nest weeks scribe

JS: thanks all
Received on Monday, 16 May 2011 22:35:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:42:38 GMT