W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > May 2012

Re: Minutes for 10 May TF Teleconference

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 12 May 2012 14:38:12 +1000
Message-ID: <CAHp8n2mnJo8-gEwdpKA=PY3XTQnni6GGeJ4LRXhT9XbR5kmJhA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 9:21 AM, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> wrote:
> Silvia Pfeiffer writes:
>> On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 7:02 AM, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> wrote:
>> > Hi, Silvia:
>> >
>> > Silvia Pfeiffer writes:
>> >> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 2:04 AM, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> wrote:
>> >> > Minutes from the HTML-A11Y Task Force teleconference of 10 May are provided below in text and are available as hypertext at:
>> >> >
>> >> > http://www.w3.org/2012/05/10-html-a11y-minutes.html
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> [..]
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Media Accessibility User Requirements, annotations/pointers to spec
>> >> >
>> >> >   <JF> scribe: JF
>> >> >
>> >> >   JS: have been meaning to surface this for some time
>> >> >
>> >> >   would like to move the user requirements from a Draft note
>> >> >
>> >> >   thought it might be useful to annotate this in the HTML5 spec to link technologies to techniques (etc.)
>> >> >
>> >> >   Silvia offered to do this and felt it would be easy to do
>> >> >
>> >> >   so, do we want to take that document in that direction?
>> >> >
>> >> >   PF thought this was a good idea on their call yesterday
>> >> >
>> >> >   should we pursue?
>> >> >
>> >> >   (JF says +1)
>> >> >
>> >> >   SF: Is this annotating the HTML5 spec or the User Reqs document?
>> >> >
>> >> >   JS: the user reqs doc
>> >> >
>> >> >   MS: question seems does anyone thing this is a good idea. If Silvia has offered to do this, and it has no direct
>> >> >   changes to HTML5 spec, then are there objections?
>> >> >   ... seems like a useful bit of work
>> >> >   ... guessing that Silvia wanted to ensure that others saw the value, and agreed before she undertook the effort
>> >> >
>> >> >   JF: +1 for Silvia improving things - with thanks
>> >> >
>> >> >   <Stevef> +1 for Silvia improving things - with thanks
>> >> >
>> >> >   JS: I will discuss this with Silvia - worth noting that the media team are re-convening on short notice - actually
>> >> >   meeting later today
>> >>
>> >> Does this refer to creating an update of
>> >> http://www.w3.org/TR/media-accessibility-reqs/ with links to the parts
>> >> in the spec that realize the different requirements?
>> >
>> >
>> > Precisely. We discussed this briefly in email this past March. See
>> > especially:
>> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012Mar/0353.html
>>
>>
>> Would this require that I join another WG?
>
> Not necessary. We can accept the additions as comments and simply add
> them in.
>
>
> The document will go through a Last Call following integration of all
> remaining tweaks. We're still expecting tweaks from Judy for Section 1,
> by the way. So, there's a way to go before we formally publish this as a
> note.
>
> Of course, if you want to join PF, we'd be delighted to have you. But, I
> don't believe it's necessary.

Not sure I could contribute that much in PF in general. ;-)

Anyway: I can make the contributions, but I would like to ask to be a
bit more explicit about authorship of that document. I believe to have
been the main editor of the original document when it was still in the
wiki, and to have written a large part - if not the majority - of the
document. None of the editorship and contribution notices on the
document expressly state so. When pointing other people to the
original wiki page, at least it was possible to look at the history to
see who contributed what. This document's acknowledgement section
seems to imply that all the PFWG participants participated in
developing this document and funding was provided for its development,
when in fact all of it was developed in the accessibility TF. At
minimum, the members of the media a11y TF and the explicitly involved
contributors should be mentioned more explicitly with their individual
contributions in that section to correct that impression. I'd be happy
to provide wording for such, too.

Best Regards,
Silvia.
Received on Saturday, 12 May 2012 04:39:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 12 May 2012 04:39:03 GMT