- From: Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 09:23:59 -0400
- To: "'HTML Accessibility Task Force'" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Minutes available at: http://www.w3.org/2010/09/29-html-a11y-minutes.html Copy also included below. [2nd half of meeting was logged to http://www.w3.org/2010/09/29-html-a11y-irc ; log was patched later with first half from channel] Session Start: Wed Sep 29 18:05:50 2010 Session Ident: #html-a11y * Topic is 'HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference 2010-07-08 at 1500h UTC' chair: John_Foliot present: Sean Hayes, Kenny Johar, John Foliot, Judy Brewer, Frank Olivier regrets: Janina, Silvia, Eric scribe: Judy agendum 1. "agenda review, scribe id" taken up reviewed agenda brewer scribing agenda+ action item review http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/open agendum 4. "WCAG Mapping Update -- Sean" taken up [from Judy] jf: what are next steps on WCAG mapping update ...seems like there may be some gaps sh: unclear what gaps? jf: where items don't directly align w/ WCAG A, or AA, or AAA sh: [missed] jf: issue of time-stamp endorsement... ...is this ready to circulate beyond the media subteam? sh: I was supposed to follow up on bugs to add, from last week, that relate to this table <jf>Checklist link: http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_Accessibility_Checklist#Technical_Requirements_Prioritizations_and_Dependencies <sean> I was saying that + indicates goes beyond wcag, but is drilling down on the technical details jf: what happened with the discussion about getting the bugs in place including wrt the time-stamping question jb: it was taken up with the html wg co-chairs; there was some back-and-forth on that; i would need to look at the bottom of the thread to confirm current status. ...i will check with Janina and/or Sam. jb: where in doubt, get the bugs filed now. they don't have to be in perfect shape to file get the bugs filed by deadline. they can be refined later. jf: sean can you file? sh: probably not, but enough info in my mail so that someone else can. jf: i'll file them. jb: thx. pls do. pls also send mail back to media subteam confirming and giving links. thx. jf: will do. ..if redundant, can remove later. jb: think that there's understanding about the need to elaborate some of the bugs later. logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/09/29-html-a11y-irc all: initial look through of sean's mapping to wcag 2 a, aa, aaa http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_Accessibility_Checklist#Technical_Requirements_Prioritizations_and_Dependencies jb: pls remind me the source of the must/should/may jf: my informal review jb: then the wcag 2 mapping should have more authority jf: but may not be sufficient to address the importance for media sh: my sense as well is that because we're dealing with increased granularity here, the results may be different jf: is there some validity with my gut reaction must/should/may assignments? ...sean did my mappings make sense to you? sh: i didn't focus on that a lot, and a fair amount of it looked on target jf: frank how did this look? fo: i'll comment if I see something kj: i'll review it as well jf: straw poll yet? jb: hmmm.... jb: what's the plus? sh: it means going beyond wcag 2 at least in granularity.... jb: and the "tbd" -- would discussion here benefit? sh: derived from uaag jb: thoughts about time-sensitive coordination; could coordinate also w/ jeanne spellman and kelly ford if jim allan is not available jb: could we be missing bugs on this jf: good question sh: wouldn't that be their responsibility? jb: on this timeframe, need to work with them on this jf: will getting the placeholder text in place help? jb: might jf: if text comes in after oct 1, we should be able to file bugs against new text should be able to come in by then ... to be clear, that is what i'm proposing... jb: suggests that jf checks w/ janina jb: on the mapping, let's nail down the follow-ups w/ uawg jf: i will jb: what else would accelerate this? sh: next stage would be putting columns into the table to indicate support for the granular requirements jb: what about that straw poll that john was suggesting, maybe proceed on that afterall? jf: yes would help vet the must/should/mays sh? jf? : and we need the uaag input jf: can do a straw poll before TF meeting tomorrow jb: let's keep it moving, great jb: how get those in place? jf: two urgent things: straw poll on snapshot of must/should/may, and bug filing by friday jb: could we plan how to get the formats in place sh: i could plug in ttml jb: would be good to have a model jf: concerned about not biasing with one sample sh: new pages for each format jb: wondering if we lose an opportunity to open-mindedly cross-compare sh: wiki table is hard to work w/; perhaps condensed cross-ref table? sh: might work jf: might work jf: so we create a number of new pages sh: could create the page, may not get all the detail in ... may leave out the sections where there are gaps jf: i'll create the cross-ref page sh: might be difficult to show all the gaps ...focus tables on text format JF: are there any other concerns that need to be addressed today action: jb will review threads on getting spec text in confirming that we're meeting next week, and the following we may have gaps the week after next WAI_PFWG(A11Y
Received on Thursday, 30 September 2010 13:24:21 UTC