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

Re: 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 14:52:01 -0500
Message-ID: <CAOavpve_8OKnfwsdskbmgZq8jZfL+MGUeL-5zKkJ3S7Xp6DosQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>
typo:
"Sam, are ready for the HTML WG survey."

Should be:

"Sam, we are ready for the HTML WG survey".

Best Regards,
Laura

On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Laura Carlson
<laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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



-- 
Laura L. Carlson
Received on Tuesday, 18 September 2012 19:52:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 18 September 2012 19:52:29 GMT