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

Swapped in new approved CP overlay text (was Re: Text Subteam Minutes for 18 September)

From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 14:16:10 -0500
Message-ID: <CAOavpvcM48a59rztB4rhqdsXFnS0_qQv5gum0OuDqSzdTFiK0g@mail.gmail.com>
To: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Hi Judy and all,

After the Text Team meeting today you asked me switch the overlay text
 from the talk page into the main CP page, because as noted in today's
text team meeting we have not only affirmed consensus on the new
overlay text for the longdesc change proposal but also once again
reaffirmed task force consensus on the the proposal itself [1].

I have swapped in the new overlay text as you and the text team requested.

Sam, are ready for the HTML WG survey.

Best Regards,
Laura

On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> wrote:
>
> Minutes from the Text Subteam teleconference of the HTML-A11Y Task Force on Tuesday 18 September are provided below as text, and are available as hypertext at:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2012/09/18-text-minutes.html
>
>    W3C
>
>                                                                                    - DRAFT -
>
>                                                                                SV_MEETING_TITLE
>
> 18 Sep 2012
>
>    See also: IRC log
>
> Attendees
>
>    Present
>    Regrets
>    Chair
>           judy
>
>    Scribe
>           janina
>
> Contents
>
>      * Topics
>          1. Issue 206, metagenerator exemption removed, status of remaining 206 explorations
>          2. Confirm next meeting; identify next scribe; adjourn
>          3. Agenda review; identify scribe.
>          4. Issue 30, longdesc, discussion of comments received on call for consensus
>      * Summary of Action Items
>      _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>
> Issue 206, metagenerator exemption removed, status of remaining 206 explorations
>
>    <scribe> scribe: janina
>
> Confirm next meeting; identify next scribe; adjourn
>
> Agenda review; identify scribe.
>
>    <Judy> scribe = janina
>
>    <Judy> scribe=janina
>
>    <Judy> scribe:janina
>
> Issue 30, longdesc, discussion of comments received on call for consensus
>
>    jb: Appear to have many comments on list re longdesc, but not on the lang we asked for comments on
>
>    <laura> Two actionable comments.
>
>    jb: Have people had a chance to catch up on the thread?
>    ... Anyone not up to speed?
>
>    <laura> 1. Janina found a two typos in the overlay, that I fixed.
>
>    <laura> 2. Chaals said he could live with the overlay text as is and offered some text for improvement. I would like to go through these in the meeting today.
>
>    <laura> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012Sep/0192.html
>
>    [answer: mostly caught up]
>
>    jb: So, any edits?
>
>    lc: Janina had typos, Chaas had substantive
>
>    <laura> Janina's message: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012Sep/0139.html
>
>    jb: Any comments on Chaas suggestions
>
>    janina: They were on the substance in the CP, not on the wrapper text
>
>    lc: Perhaps too detailed as well
>    ... Mainly rewording what we have
>
>    jb: MDid his comments influence the disucssion?
>
>    janina: Don't think so
>
>    lc: agree
>
>    jb: Would Chaas comments change anyone else's approach?
>
>    jf: Chaas raised some good points, kicked off wider discussion
>
>    janina: My sense of the comments of the past few days on this thread have recapped the arguments of the past few years succinctly
>
>    jf: The obsolete req falls on authors
>    ... They're trying to impose an authoring requirement where they don't have a workable approach
>    ... "Obsolete but conforming" means authors shouldn't use, but user agents will still support
>    ... It will throw an error
>
>    jb: My hope had been that people would look more closely at the overview provided
>
>    lc: So, what to do with Chaas comments?
>
>    [review of comments on thread in progress]
>
>    [Steve abstained]
>
>    [we're reviewing comments and working on a summary]
>
>    <Judy> [DRAFT] Summary of feedback received: nine respondents affirmed or re-affirmed their support for the InstateLongdesc change proposal (two with suggested edits
>    but who also affirmed their support without those changes) [Gez L, David M, Josh O'C, Geoff F, Charles MN, Leif S, Laura C, Leonie W, John F]; two people supported
>    with proposed edits which in fact had already been applied to the change proposal in the past, and are therefore already included in the CP [Sil
>
>    <Judy> s/was received/were received/
>
>    <Judy> s/note appear/not appear/
>
>    <Judy> s/intended these/intended those/
>
>    <Judy> jb double-checking several comments....
>
>    <Judy> jb: "supported with proposed edits" is not correct.
>
>    <Judy> changing text...
>
>    <Judy> [redraft] two people proposed edits without stating support but their suggestions had already been incorporated in the past...
>
>    <Judy> draft with corrections:
>
>    <Judy> [DRAFT] Summary of feedback received: nine respondents affirmed or re-affirmed their support for the InstateLongdesc change proposal (two with suggested edits
>    but who also affirmed their support without those changes) [Gez L, David M, Josh O'C, Geoff F, Charles MN, Leif S, Laura C, Leonie W, John F]; two people proposed
>    edits without stating support but their suggestions had already been incorporated in the past [Silvia Pf, Rich S]; one abstained and his suggestions had also already
>    been incorporated [Steve F]; two t
>
>    <Judy> [final summary of comments received by response deadline] Summary of feedback received: nine respondents affirmed or re-affirmed their support for the
>    InstateLongdesc change proposal (two with suggested edits but who also affirmed their support without those changes) [Gez L, David M, Josh O'C, Geoff F, Charles MN,
>    Leif S, Laura C, Leonie W, John F]; two people proposed edits without stating support but their suggestions had already been incorporated in the past [
>
>    jb: Reminding that last Thursday's TF call agreed that Text Subteam could process comments on behalf of TF
>    ... Further notes that all TF were invited to the Text call
>    ... Now appears the preponderance of comments continue to reaffirm TF support for the InstateLongdesc CP on Issue-30
>    ... Also note that several comments received speak to further development for an enhanced longer description mechanism
>    ... Regret we did not get to buggy alt topic, note we have update from David
>
>    <laura> Yes! longdesc on <picture>, <video> etc.
>
> Summary of Action Items
>
>    [End of minutes]
>      _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>
> Found Scribe: janina
>
> --
>
> Janina Sajka,   Phone:  +1.443.300.2200
>                         sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net
>                 Email:  janina@rednote.net
>
> The Linux Foundation
> Chair, Open Accessibility:      http://a11y.org
>
> The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
> Chair,  Protocols & Formats     http://www.w3.org/wai/pf
>         Indie UI                        http://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/
>
>



-- 
Laura L. Carlson
Received on Tuesday, 18 September 2012 19:16:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 18 September 2012 19:16:37 GMT