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

Re: Test Subteam Minutes for Monday 26 September

From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 12:32:46 -0500
Message-ID: <CAOavpvda1VgcjLOzP8=u74Aa8gmmmUeo2H7PsqghbKsWCLnFUg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lynn Holdsworth <lynn.holdsworth@rnib.org.uk>
Cc: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Hi Lynn,

> 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]

This is what we had last go-round for use cases:

http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/SummaryForTABLE#Use_Cases

http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/SummaryAttribute20100222#Blind.2FNon-Visual_Users

Rereading the Chairs' decision, they must not have been specific enough.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0091.html

Best Regards,
Laura

--
Laura L. Carlson

On 9/26/11, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> wrote:
> 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)
>
>
>


-- 
Laura L. Carlson
Received on Monday, 26 September 2011 17:33:26 GMT

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