RE: minutes: HTML A11y TF Telecon, 2009-01-23 [resend]

I don't think it necessarily needs to have a separate list, that would be up to the sub group.  However, separate telecons are useful, so there can be targeted discussion, and all the right people are there.  Telecons with 30 people don't work very well, and one hour a week is not long enough for the number of things we need to discuss.

As an example, Silvia, an HTML media accessibility telecon should be at a time that you can attend!

-----Original Message-----
From: public-html-a11y-request@w3.org [mailto:public-html-a11y-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Silvia Pfeiffer
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 2:27 PM
To: Gregory J. Rosmaita
Cc: public-html-a11y@w3.org
Subject: Re: minutes: HTML A11y TF Telecon, 2009-01-23 [resend]

May I ask why we are asking the subgroups - canvas and media - to set
up their own mailing list and discussion environment? I thought this
group was created so we had an environment with a11y experts that can
provide input to all a11y related issues for html5. Pushing things
into further mailing lists and out of the focus of all the a11y
experts doesn't seem productive to me. If somebody is not interested
in a particular email thread, they can always ignore it. But pushing
discussions onto further mailing lists to me seems to turn this task
force into an empty shell.

Best Regards,
Silvia.


On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 4:24 AM, Gregory J. Rosmaita <oedipus@hicom.net> wrote:
> aloha!
>
> apologies for disseminating the wrong minutes -- i was trying to listen
> to the HTML WG telecon as i wrapped the minutes, and inadvertantly
> copied and pasted the wrong text file into the body of my previous
> post...
>
> minutes from the initial HTML Accessibility Task Force teleconference
> are available as hypertext from:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2009/12/03-pf-minutes.html
>
> and as in IRC log at:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2009/12/03-pf-irc
>
> and as plain text following my signature -- please log any corrections,
> clarifications, comments and the like by replying-to this announcement
> on-list...
>
> thanks to all who participated, gregory.
>     _________________________________________________________________
>
>                                   - DRAFT -
>
>                 HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference
>
> 03 Dec 2009
>
>   See also: IRC log [http://www.w3.org/2009/12/03-pf-irc]
>
> Attendees
>
>   Present
>          +1.408.307.aadd, +1.512.206.aabb, +1.650.862.aaaa,
>          +49.693.650.5.aacc, AllanJ, Cooper, Geoff_Freed,
>          Gregory_Rosmaita, Janina, John_Foliot, Jon_Gunderson,
>          Joshue_O_Connor, Markku_Hakkinen, Martin_Kliehm, RichS, Stevef,
>          dsinger
>
>   Regrets
>          Aurélien_Levy, Cynthia_Shelly, Gez_Lemon, Kelly_Ford,
>          Laura_Carlson, Maciej_Stachowiak, Stephane_Deschamps,
>          Sylvia_Pfeiffer, Wendy_Chisholm, chaals
>
>   Chair
>          Janina_Sajka
>
>   Scribe
>          Gregory_Rosmaita
>
> Contents
>
>     * Topics
>         1. Getting Acquainted
>         2. Participation & Expectations
>         3. TF Subgroups (Canvas; Video; ...) Procedures Discussion
>         4. Existing Issues Prioritization -- What? Who? When?
>         5. Upcomming Meetings
>     * Summary of Action Items
>     _________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
>   <trackbot> Date: 03 December 2009
>
>   <scribe> Scribe: Gregory_Rosmaita
>
>   <scribe> ScribeNick: oedipus
>
>   standing regrets for 1600h UTC thursdays: Laura_Carlson, Gez_Lemon,
>   Sylvia_Pfeiffer
>
>   <eric_carlson> 408 is eric_carlson
>
>   the church of the subgenius
>
>   JS: cofacillitator from PFWG, MikeSmith facillitator from HTML WG,
>   Michael Cooper staff contact for TF
>
> Getting Acquainted
>
>   JS: goal: sense of what we should be working on through january and in
>   what order
>
>   <janina> Meeting: HTML-A11Y telecon
>
>   <janina> agenda: this
>
>   JS: janina sajka
>   ... please state name before speaking during first few meetings
>
>   <jongunderson> I was disconnected from the bridge twice
>
>   JS: there are a number of people who cannot join call
>
>   standing regrets for 1600h UTC thursdays: Laura_Carlson, Gez_Lemon,
>   Sylvia_Pfeiffer
>
>   JS: wasn't time that worked for everybody - will take stock of meeting
>   attendance weekly
>   ... if need to adjust meeting date/time, can do, but will try
>   thursdays at 1600h UTC
>
> Participation & Expectations
>
>   JS: will introduce topics and open for discussion
>   ... should expect that co-facillitators will rotate as far as chairing
>
>   <scribe> chair: Janina_Sajka
>
>   JS: participants primarily drawn from PF and HTML WGs but are own
>   group
>   ... establishing TF identity - not PF nor HTML, but HTML A11y Task
>   Force
>   ... co-facillitators and staff contact have had discussion - want to
>   lay out what is expected of participants
>   ... expect those here to be ACTIVE participants
>   ... here to participate in decisions and discussions that will lead to
>   HTML specs that adequately support a11y -- raison d'etre
>   ... participate in telecons as able, through email, through wiki
>
>   http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/
>
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/
>
>   JS: policy for TF re: good standing - based on participation
>   ... co-facilliltators working on draft of good standing
>   ... point is not to be bureaucratic, but efficient
>   ... solutions-oriented work
>   ... asked to create task force from PF - HTML WG agreed and offered to
>   co-facillitate
>   ... point: expedite accessibility issues, concerns, bugs, etc.
>   ... brief statement about expectations on how TF members will conduct
>   themselves; we are all professionals, so please conduct self with
>   professionalism
>   ... keep discussions and debates on the issues and specific
>   technologies
>   ... avoid personalities and focus on solutions and concrete
>   suggestions
>
>   MS (MikeSmith)
>
>   MS: good summation
>
>   JS: quick thumbnail of good standing process
>   ... will finish draft and send to html-a11y list for review and
>   consensus at next thursday's meeting
>
>   MC (Michael Cooper)
>
>   MC: using W3C "good standing" process as closely to letter of W3C
>   process as possible
>   ... good standing = participation in some form at least once every 2
>   weeks
>   ... number of channels TF uses
>   ... email list, wiki,
>   ... if not at telecon, reading/reviewing minutes
>   ... important to keep all hands busy since fortunate enough to have
>   such a large response
>   ... if people aren't able to be active, will be marked as "not in good
>   standing" -- effect: 1 marked as not in good standing, cannot make
>   objection to decisions if not in good standing
>   ... only participants in good standing can make decisions
>   ... important to be in good standing in order to have voice in TF
>   ... if conflicts arise, let the co-facillitators and staff contact
>   know
>   ... to restore good standing, all one need do is participate in TF
>   fora
>
>   JS: questions?
>   ... will conduct ourselves as the professionals we are
>   ... TF evolving its own procedures; one aspect how to reach decisions
>   ... can start with W3C consensus policies
>   ... when not unanimous on specific approach, need to figure out how to
>   reach decision of group in such cases; not simple majority voting, but
>   what?
>   ... think we can take time to figure out as TF members become more
>   familiar with one another
>   ... can develop own decision-making processes -- keep in mind, that it
>   is an evolving process
>
>   HTML A11y Task Force Home Page:
>   http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Main_Page
>
>   HTML A11y Task Force Work Statement:
>   http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/html-task-force.html
>
>   JS: will make decisions in teleconferences as PFWG does; will NOT make
>   major decisions -- those will be covered by email solicitations (24-48
>   hour "heartburn" check)
>
>   s/major decisions.../major decisions at teleconferences. at
>   teleconferences.
>
>   JS: if participant has needs special needs (interpreters for deaf, for
>   example) will make every attempt to support participation
>   (interpreters, etc.) -- will be working on decisioning process, this
>   telecon is part of that
>   ... goal: to hear from all interested/affected parties
>
>   MS: important that TF members know how decision making policy vis a
>   vis telecon recording resolutions and decisions
>
>   JS: questions? comments?
>
>   [none logged]
>
> TF Subgroups (Canvas; Video; ...) Procedures Discussion
>
>   JS: adopting a sub-group that pre-exists A11y TF -- canvas sub-team
>   led by RichS of IBM
>   ... also adopting another group which is in process of organizing,
>   which is sub-team dealing with media issues
>   ... accessibility for multimedia on HTML5
>   ... JohnF and DaveS did great presentation in advance of TPAC 2009
>   ... expectations for sub-groups: you are on your own - can have own
>   teleons (as canvas does)
>   ... might be useful for media subgroup to have own list and
>   teleconferences
>   ... canvas already having own telecons
>
>   <dsinger_> We organized an informal meeting prior to Tpac, no
>   presentation at Tpac
>
>   JS: might need to invite experts for particular discussions
>   ... tracker - can add "products" pegged to topics
>   ... for W3C process -- on wiki, have a minimal work statement for each
>   sub-teacm for wiki -- this is what this sub-group is about and this is
>   what its goals and timeline and work plan is
>
>   RS (RichS)
>
>   RS: most a11y people will be tied up until monday (publication of new
>   ARIA draft)
>
>   JS: would like to get subgroup descriptions, etc on wiki by end of
>   year
>
>   SF (Steve Faulkner)
>
>   SF: when decide about formation of sub-groups in addition to canvas
>   and multimedia
>
>   <JF> Does Steve have an idea for another Sub Group?
>
>   JS: as prioritize issues, should shake out into a work plan -- may
>   decide during review of issues to spawn supgroup if necessary
>
>   <Joshue> +q
>
>   JOC (Joshue O Connor)
>
>   JOC: if any groups that want me for any issue, please do because i
>   have some open time right now
>
>   <Joshue> lol
>
> Existing Issues Prioritization -- What? Who? When?
>
>   JS: facillitators and staff contact thought that ARIA-mapping may be
>   one area
>   ... what to do with @alt
>   ... @summary
>   ... brainstorm roadmap of what to attack when
>
>   GJR: need to ascertain what from HTML5 has been implemented
>
>   <Joshue> GJR: One means of prioritising is that we need to know what
>   parts of HTML are being implemented etc so we can anticipate any
>   issues.
>
>   <JF> +1 GJR
>
>   <Joshue> GJR: Our work should be mapped to HTML in the wild
>
>   JS: used keywords in HTML5 bugzilla to identify accessiblity related
>   issues - keyword: a11y
>
>   http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?product=HTML+WG&keywords=a11
>   ytf
>
>   <Joshue> -q
>
>   <Zakim> MikeSmith, you wanted to say that there are other
>   implementations to consider other than just browsers
>
>   MS: agree with GJR's point about addressing issues vis a vis
>   implementation of features in order to prioritize discussions for this
>   group; not just browsers that are important -- conformance checkers -
>   no conformance checker other than validator.nu
>   ... one reason why we should try to make ARIA mappings a priority
>   because waiting on validator.nu to get resolution on this so can
>   change schema to align with consensus opinion on integration/mapping
>   ... sooner we can get that done and forward to HTML WG for resolution
>   as to what should appear in spec, can then get implementations that
>   conform to consensus, feed info to validator.nu and then be able to
>   use to check ARIA markup
>   ... 2 bug reports this week about ARIA checking at validator.nu
>   ... shows interest in ARIA and ARIA support
>
>   GJR: plus 1
>
>   MC: validators driven by schemata of various sorts -- preparing some
>   on PF side -- may be orthagonal to core mission of A11y TF
>   ... will have schemata available soon for validators -- issues beyond
>   conformance checkers, MS?
>
>   MS: need to have an agreement upon what the exact integration of ARIA
>   into HTML5 should be
>   ... don't have agreement yet, becuase not completed discussion -- need
>   documentation and verbiage that we agree upon
>   ... what have now is hixie's take on what is appropriate
>   ... what is at vallidator.nu is hixie's and some is based on HenriS'
>   work
>   ... would be good to have it standardized and agreed-upon
>   ... need official "line" on ARIA integration - need more sense of
>   urgency to get ARIA mapping finallized
>
>   SF: agree with MS' assessment -- been working on this with Cynthia
>   Shelly; need input from other people; how lax or strict should it be?
>   haven't yet come up with formula for determining laxity or strictness
>
>   <dsinger_> ud
>
>   SF: need to have some dedicated individuals to work on ARIA mappping
>
>   DS (Dave Singer)
>
>   DS: what is on topic for this group and what is not on topic for this
>   group -- clarify impact on HTML5 spec; textual changes, material that
>   will impact other W3C specifications
>
>   <Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to distinguish ARIA integration from ARIA
>   mapping
>
>   MC: ARIA-integration - building ARIA into HTML5 spec
>   ... ARIA-mapping - how ARIA features map to accessibility APIs and how
>   HTML5 handles those APIs
>   ... want to distinguish issues to avoid overlap and misunderstanding
>
>   SF: think we are talking about the same thing
>   ... MS and i are talking about the same thing -- ARIA-mapping
>
>   JS: should we resume at this point next thursday (10 december 2009)
>   ... any objection to ARIA-integration?
>
>   RS: other issues being addressed, make this priority
>
>   SF: there has been a change proposal submitted by me on @alt
>
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2009Dec/0023.html
>
>   SF: parts need work
>   ... would like to have others to work on change proposal within and
>   without A11y TF
>
>   JS: good procedural question: is it necessary to send to both
>   public-html and public-html-a11y
>   ... procedure is issues kicked our way, TF comes up with proposals,
>   which are then submitted to HTML WG, which then through its processes
>   decides if acceptable, also pass on to PFWG to ensure recommendations
>   meet a11y needs under PFWG's purview
>   ... don't deliver final wording - recommendations that -- if worded
>   well -- can be adopted wholesale
>
>   MK: mapping doesn't end with ARIA
>
>   <dsinger_> I suggest that we ask ht
>
>   MK: new HTML5 elements not mapped to any a11y APIs -- need
>   investigatino
>
>   SF: being looked at by the AAPI task force
>
>   <dsinger_> HTML wg to send non-consensus a11y questions to us and that
>   we not cross post until we are done
>
>   JS: not the only joint task force
>   ... AAPI been mostly PF participation so far
>   ... start with ARIA, finalize alt proposal
>
> Upcomming Meetings
>
>   next 2 months of thursdays at 1600h UTC - upcomming dates: 10 december
>   2009, 17 december 2009, 24 december 2009, 31 december 2009, 7 january
>   2010, 14 january 2010, 21 january 2010, 28 january 2010, 4 february
>   2010
>
>   JS: canvas and aapi already working, can help facillitate organization
>   for media accessibility -- may be separate telecon -- participation in
>   any subgroup equals participation in the TF
>   ... propose we skip last 2 thursdays of december
>
>   [NO OBJECTION]
>
>   <MikeSmith> sounds good to me
>
>   RESOLUTION: A11y TF will meet on 10 december 2009 (ARIA), 17 december
>   2009 (@alt) resume on 7 january 2010
>
> Summary of Action Items
>
>   [End of minutes]
>     _________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
>

Received on Thursday, 3 December 2009 23:10:44 UTC