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

Minutes, CfC's from today.

From: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 20:11:30 +0400
To: "public-html-a11y@w3.org" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.wojt9gcmy3oazb@dhcp-216-67-wifi.yandex.net>
Hi,

Sorry, the meeting over-ran by a few minutes.

Summary:
Some outstanding action items are long overdue. Chaals took an action to  
find out whether they are really outstanding, have been overtaken by  
events, or just not done.

We agreed to meet face to face in parallel with the HTML-WG, at the end of  
teh week of April 22, in Silicon Valley. Although we will request space to  
meet on our own, for times when the TF and the WG are working on topics  
that are not of mutual interest, we expect to meet together at least some  
of the time. The chairs will be responsible for ensuring that we  
coordinate with the HTML-WG to make sure there is no reason for  
misundertsandings on scheduling of topics and the like.

We agreed that before requesting FPWD for the Longdesc extension spec we  
will identify any process issues in Matt's Objection to publishing, and  
request the HTML-WG resolve those questions directly.

We agreed that before we request FPWD we will also develop an agreed TF  
response to each of the technical issues raised in objection to advancing  
the specification.

We did not discuss the situation regarding guidance on alt text in HTML.

Thanks to John Foliot for scribing, the minutes are available at  
http://www.w3.org/2012/11/29-html-a11y-minutes.html

and reproduced below.



- DRAFT -

HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

29 Nov 2012

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
J_brewer, MichaelC, JFoliot, CynthiaShelley, RichS, Leonie,  
David_McDonald, PaulC, Ted_(Hober), SteveF
Regrets
Janina
Chair
Chaals
Scribe
JF
Contents

Topics
+ find scribe
+ check action items
+ Face to face meeting with HTML/Webapps in April, Silicon Valley?
+ Outcome of CfC to publish longdesc as FPWD
+ Status of "alt" text in HTML (specification and usage in the document)
+ Summary of Action Items

Chaals:
check action items

chaals: reviewing items
<MichaelC> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/open
<scribe> ACTION: 148 to [recorded in  
http://www.w3.org/2012/11/29-html-a11y-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Sorry, bad ACTION syntax
<chaals> ACTION-148?
<trackbot> ACTION-148 -- John Foliot to do a summary of the 2 competing  
proposals for Issue 194 -- due 2012-11-22 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/148
JF: still open
... will shoot for next week, should be fine
<chaals> ACTION-148: due in 1 week
<trackbot> ACTION-148 Do a summary of the 2 competing proposals for Issue  
194 notes added
<chaals> ACTION-147?
<trackbot> ACTION-147 -- Charles McCathie Nevile to organise meeting  
between co-chairs and HTML editors to see if we can peacefully resolve the  
alt text guidance issue -- due 2012-11-22 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/147
ACTION-147
<chaals> ACTION-146?
<trackbot> ACTION-146 -- Charles McCathie Nevile to publish updated draft  
and call for consensus running until Monday 26th -- due 2012-11-22 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/146
<chaals> ACTION-144?
<trackbot> ACTION-144 -- Charles McCathie Nevile to check whether we  
should be looking into accesskeys as an HTML issue -- due 2012-11-15 --  
OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/144
Chaals: 147, will return to that later in meeting, 146, working forward,  
145 on Janina - ignoring this week due to Janina not being here
... 144 is accesskeys, still open and on Chaals
<chaals> ACTION-144: . due in 1 week
<trackbot> ACTION-144 Check whether we should be looking into accesskeys  
as an HTML issue notes added
Chaals: 143: on Steve F
<chaals> ACTION-143?
<trackbot> ACTION-143 -- Steve Faulkner to chase ISSUE-194 by getting to  
FPWD proposals drafted -- due 2012-11-15 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/143
Steve: had a discussion a few weeks back, attempting to get 1 or more  
extensions specs written
chaals: steves action item is superceded by JF's Action 149
<scribe> ACTION: chaals to follow up old action items and see which remain  
relevent [recorded in  
http://www.w3.org/2012/11/29-html-a11y-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-149 - Follow up old action items and see which  
remain relevent [on Charles McCathie Nevile - due 2012-12-06].

Face to face meeting with HTML/Webapps in April, Silicon Valley?

chaals: looking to have F2F meetings in April - we have been asked if we  
wish to meet at same time
... is there interest in this at this group?
JF: yes
Cyns: thinks a great idea, and PF was positive too
PLH: at this time there are 3 groups meeting, web apps, WAI-PF and HTML WG
question is, when would you like to meet? as there will be some overlap
<mhakkinen> ETS would be interested, depending on date (due to other  
conferences)
Cyns: if the HTML WG uses the unconference mode, that worked well
chaals:
strong preference not to overlap with web apps
Judy: noticed at TPAC that when a certain item was scheduled for a time,  
missed that slot, and then appeared at a different time with short notice  
- caused some frustration
due to gathering up view points, etc.
unconference mode has worked well, but if there are specific items, having  
it scheduled is productive
PLH: exact locationg TBC, but F2F will be in the Bay Area (Silicon Valley)
chaals: regarding unconference mode
we should perhpas ask the HTML WG to run an actual scheduling session at  
the beginning to ensure we get our own items on the agenda
but that we also look to run our own track
chaals: ensure that we communicate with Chairs to be sure we have good  
communication
PLH: does this mean this TF needs a seperate room>
chaals: not sure - exploring that possibility
Cyns: that may not be needed, at last TPAC we did not use/require
PLH: last F2F in Silicon Valley only used 1 room, and that seemed to work  
well
chaals: it seemed to work ok, however some of the HTML attendees where  
unhappy about that
depends on the topics
suspect that some of our items are of little interest to the larger group,  
and that some of the HTML WG topics aren't our concerns
JUdy: given that this is a few months out, and given that we may have new  
items between now and then, plus the further de-coupling of things , such  
as the mandate that the TF now has to advance their own extensions as  
specs,, likely that having a seperate room for this TF have it's own room,  
at least part of the time
PLH: will ask the host about this, but it should be do-able - very little  
impact
cyns, perhaps 1 day seperate, one day with larger group
JF: +1 to cyns

ACTION on Chaals to have TF chairs coor4dinate with HTML Chairs on  
scheduing for F2F in April
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find on. You can review and register nicknames  
at <http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/users>.

Outcome of CfC to publish longdesc as FPWD

chaals: we had a CFC set to close before this meeting - we had one set of  
statements from James Craig saying not fan of Longdesc, plus one objection  
 from Mat Turvey to moving forward
... responded directly to Matt, so perhaps not best to comment, but chaals  
has a personal position and so may have conflict of interest
Judy: ... since I've not followed all of the list discussion, is there a  
response from Matt to Chaals' response to his initial objections?
<paulc> Link to the CFC, please?
<paulc> Aside, treat me like Rip van Winkle - away for 4 weeks.
stevef: not a huge fan of longedesc, but agree that this should continue  
to move forward
<chaals>  
http://www.w3.org/mid/CA+ri+VnNPq_DRiQjzm0+v5fDyGnNo5VqPVQWoAr8ukn-cchsBQ@mail.gmail.com  
-> Call for Consensus to request FPWD
as janina pointed out, is part of TF job to provide support and get this  
out to the WG
this is not a
<Judy> links to objection?
CFC is not whether you agree with longdesc, but rather if we should move  
forward on the tech spec
<chaals>  
http://www.w3.org/mid/CAFp5+ApBdj-htMGOZQpkChdFJ2Fe3vVrgntnksQ7+PWdaGUVOQ@mail.gmail.com  
-> objection to publishing from Matt Turvey
LjW: just to +1 as the voice of a user, until we have something better  
lets continue working with this
chaals: any ohter comment5s/thoughts?
<David> +1
PaulC: looking for the actual URL
chaals: pasted into IRC channel
... what we have is a handful of comments, along with a request to modify  
a specific example
<richardschwerdtfeger> copy that
chaals: so question is, is Matt's objection sufficient to stop progress,  
or should we continue to move forward noting Matt's objection
SteveF: my understanding is that the TF asks the HTML WG to move this  
forward there, thus at this time we are looking to ask the WG to continue  
to work on this there
PaulC: generally agree with earlier comments re: technical details don't  
need to be finished to move forward
however in this case, sending this along to the Working Group will simply  
serve to resurface the same objections
so perhaps addressing each each point, and file bugs against each  
technical objection would be the way forward
chaals: replied to each objection as an individual
process -wise, the TF needs the WG "consent" to move forward, as the TF  
does not have mandate to final publication
Judy: many of the comments were never formally addressed by the TF, and  
only ever discussed on the list
perhaps this TF should split them out and formally address them
<paulc> Note that there is a patent policy implication on FPWD:  
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-exclusion-with
<paulc> This is at least one reason the associated WGs need to approve the  
publication.
JUdy: from my perspective, the better the record we have on how the TF  
responds to the issues, the stronger the "story" moving forward
PaulC: people cannot lose fact re: Patent Policy
the TF does not have the same responsabilities in that regard
so there are Process requirements for this to go through the WG
Chaals: agree that process is that HTML WG to be the formal group that  
publishes this
question over whether the WG has delegated the responsibility for  
publishing, and it appears not
given that this TF will first discuss this, and then have the same debate  
repeated at the larger WG seems to be a duplication of effort - is there a  
way to minimize that
<Stevef> +1 to pauls suggestion
PaulC: believes that original response answered the question: this TF  
should address all of the technical objections, and leave process  
objections to the WG
Judy: strongly suggest that this TF respond to technical items formally
this TF can respond to his objections, and get them on the record
cyns: agree with Judy - important that we have a formal record and deal  
with each item methodically and specirfically
also believe we should reach consensus within this group, and that the TF  
speak with one voice, even if we have divergent views internally
we own this, so we need to do a good job with it
chaals: straw pol on 2 questions: 1) should we identify all the process  
questions, and pass those directly to the HTML WG untouched.
<chaals> Proposal: We identify process issues in Matt's objection, and ask  
the HTML WG to deal with those questions
<LjW> +1
Cyns: we need to review each question and decide if we believe them to be  
process or technical
<Stevef> +1
+1
<IanPouncey> +1
<paulc> Paul abstains
<David> +1
<chaals> cyns: +1
(poll on passing process questions to WG)
chaals: any against?
<paulc> I need to go to the WG meeting.
<chaals> Proposal: We expect to resolve technical objections before  
requesting FPWD
<Stevef> -1
Chaals: 2) identify technical issues and raise bugs on them
<Stevef> to resolving every bug
Judy: but you need to respond on them as well?
<Stevef> " As a Working Draft publication, the document does not need not  
be complete, to meet all technical requirements, or to have consensus on  
the contents."
chaals: suggest that we propose to identify all technical comments
judy: we should also not just identify, and not necessarily resolve, but  
to respond to all of them
... we should do more than just what the process requires - that we should  
be on record with substantive responses at the TF
cyns: agree that we should also respond - some responses may be - yes,  
file a bug, or we disagree, or other
what is important is that we have a formal record, and responses to all  
issues
chaals: wrapping up
have started to file bugs where I have found an issue
the big question is, how much consensus do we need to move this forward to  
the WG
seems that the consensus is that until we identify all the technical  
issues we are not ready
so minimum bar is to identify which issues are technical versus process,  
and formally record them as such
we should however actually resolve the issues, not just identify them
MichaelC; there is a difference between resolving issues and addressing  
comments
judy: identification is one level, responding all is a second level,  
resolving is a thrid level
SteveF: what is meant by "respond"?
Judy: chaals has responded as an individual - does this TF accept those  
responsesas the voice of the TF?
<Judy> s/does this TF accept those respopnses as the voice of the TF?/the  
TF can consider those as draft responses, or amend or expand those/
<chaals> Provisional Resolution: We expect to agree on a task for response  
to each technical issue before requesting FPWD

Status of "alt" text in HTML (specification and usage in the document)

deferred to next meeting

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: 148 to [recorded in  
http://www.w3.org/2012/11/29-html-a11y-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: chaals to follow up old action items and see which remain  
relevent [recorded in  
http://www.w3.org/2012/11/29-html-a11y-minutes.html#action02]
ACTION on Chaals to have TF chairs coor4dinate with HTML Chairs on  
scheduing for F2F in April


[End of minutes]
-- 
Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex
       chaals@yandex-team.ru         Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Thursday, 29 November 2012 19:12:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:32 UTC