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

Test Subteam Minutes for Monday 26 September

From: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 12:48:18 -0400
To: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20110926164818.GF8291@sonata.rednote.net>
Minutes from the HTML-A11yTask Force Text Subteam for Monday 26
September are provided below as text and are also available as hypertext
at:

http://www.w3.org/2011/09/26-text-minutes.html


   W3C

                                                           - DRAFT -

                                 Text Alternatives Sub-Group of HTML5 Accessibility Task Force

26 Sep 2011

   See also: IRC log

Attendees

   Present
          Judy, Janina, John_Foliot, +44.207.391.aaaa

   Regrets
   Chair
          brewer

   Scribe
          Janina

Contents

     * Topics
         1. longdesc: status of response to Jonas; issues to respond to in Matt's updated change proposal.
         2. table summary: use case or argument gaps?
            <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ReinstateTableSummary>
         3. generated content: update on new discussion sub-group and/or thread?
            <http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13668>
         4. input into process review?
         5. other business?
         6. confirm next meeting; identify next scribe; adjourn.
     * Summary of Action Items
     __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

   <Judy> scribe: Janina

   JF: Will be posting response to Jonas shortly

   JB: We need to brainstorm on response to Matt

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

   <Judy> Janina: Per previous discussion, I'm suggesting a terse approach to Matt's CP, since most of his points have
   been responded to previously.

   <JF> 2 main assertions from Matt is "Discoverability" problem and his incorrect assertion about 'flattened"
   aria-describedby

   [discussion on JF's response, Wiki or email?]

   jb: We'll post to Wiki and summarize in email

   <cfit> Hi judy, its josh via new irc client.

   <cfit> :-)

   <cfit> am holding baby

   <cfit> you got it!

   <JF> 1 other issue to note is Matt's dismissal of eText requirements with "This does not appear to be a valid use case.
   "

   <Judy> judy: so response to Matt's cp would be re-refuting old 'damage' misunderstandings; pointing to jf's response
   for programmatic determinability; and explaining assumption (of browser's ability to fix) problem in aria-described
   portion

   <Judy> janina: just disagree?

   <Judy> judy: think we need to point out where his discussion of use-cases are wrong

   jb: We need to continue to say "wrong" to reasserted erroneous statements
   ... Pointers to previous refutations can be useful, to point to recycled effort
   ... Key point is that we have put credible refutations on the table
   ... We now have uncontested, incorrect assertions that need responses before any survey is conducted

   [discussion on goals, audience, understanding, etc]

   jb: We may not be talking a terse response any longer, even though each particular point might be short
   ... Janina and John will talk for Janina to create a response to Matt with pointers into the response to Jonas

   jf: Is there value to waiting to coordinate the two?

   jb: No, much more important to get the Jonas reponse out asap

longdesc: status of response to Jonas; issues to respond to in Matt's updated change proposal.

   <Judy> ACTION: janina and john coordinate on response to matt using pointers where available [recorded in
   http://www.w3.org/2011/09/26-text-minutes.html#action01]

   jb: Anyone recall differently than that we'll take this to TF now?

   <Judy> ACTION: janina coordinate with mike s to get meta generator re-open request and change proposal on TF agenda,
   with pointers enough in advance of meeting [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/09/26-text-minutes.html#action02]

table summary: use case or argument gaps? <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ReinstateTableSummary>

   <cfit> yup

   <cfit> I won't have time to develop the use cases

   <cfit> If anyone else wants to chime in with some help please do.

   <cfit> In terms of framing the CP, I hope it is on the right road.

   jb: We still need use cases plus a review to check that the Chair's questions in their decision have been addressed

   <Judy> josh, do you think that you addressed every question that the chairs posed in the flow of their decision?

   <cfit> Yes, FWIW I did take special care to ensure many of the requirements were met in terms of re-opening the issue
   at least.

   <cfit> Pretty much

   <cfit> It was a lot of work tbh

   There are two docs to consider

   <Judy> josh, we are asking perhaps a diff qu than you are answering.

   1.) The requirements for a request to reconsider

   <cfit> ok

   2.)the original decision to obsolete table summary

   <cfit> FWIW, there is enough contained in my CP to frame other requests

   <cfit> As best I could Judy

   <cfit> I can't say if it was exhaustive, or even enough but it was the best I could do.

   <Judy> ack, & thx, on your responding to #2, but we don't know what you mean by your fwiw comment -- to frame what
   other requests?

   <cfit> if what i did isnt enough

   <cfit> it could be used as a template

   <cfit> just an idea

   <cfit> i think it has enough eg aria vs summary etc, more samples in the wild etc

   <cfit> i mean aria not as a sufficent functional replacement for summary etc

   Lynn: Asking for clarification on what should be in a use case

   jb: A terse description of how a particular user's needs are facilitated by table summary
   ... Good to have 3 or 4 such

   <Judy> ACTION: Lynn draft a few use cases for table summary [recorded in
   http://www.w3.org/2011/09/26-text-minutes.html#action03]

   <cfit> thanks lynn

generated content: update on new discussion sub-group and/or thread? <http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13668>

   jf: The issue for the subteam discussion is that CSS can generate content that may, or may not be a11y

   jb: Similar question has come up in 508 discussions, wondering whether this relates to ATAG type discussions?
   ... Wondering about involving AUWG people

   jf: Think it's mostly a CSS problem

   jb: OK

input into process review?

other business?

confirm next meeting; identify next scribe; adjourn.

   <Judy> judy -- tentatively changing time to 4 - 5pm US Eastern; JB will check on list with others.

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: janina and john coordinate on response to matt using pointers where available [recorded in
   http://www.w3.org/2011/09/26-text-minutes.html#action01]
   [NEW] ACTION: janina coordinate with mike s to get meta generator re-open request and change proposal on TF agenda,
   with pointers enough in advance of meeting [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/09/26-text-minutes.html#action02]
   [NEW] ACTION: Lynn draft a few use cases for table summary [recorded in
   http://www.w3.org/2011/09/26-text-minutes.html#action03]

   [End of minutes]
     __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

-- 

Janina Sajka,	Phone:	+1.443.300.2200
		sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net

Chair, Open Accessibility	janina@a11y.org	
Linux Foundation		http://a11y.org

Chair, Protocols & Formats
Web Accessibility Initiative	http://www.w3.org/wai/pf
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
Received on Monday, 26 September 2011 16:48:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:42:44 GMT