- From: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
- Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 01:04:13 -0400
- To: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
W3C
- DRAFT -
SV_MEETING_TITLE
07 Aug 2012
See also: IRC log
Attendees
Present
Janina, Judy, David_MacDonald, John_Foliot, Laura_Carlson
Regrets
Laura
Chair
Judy
Scribe
janina
Contents
* Topics
1. Agenda review; identify scribe.
2. Issue 30, longdesc, preamble
3. Issue 31b, buggy alts and buggy alt guidance, review updated text
4. Issue 30, longdesc, preamble
5. Issue 31b, buggy alts and buggy alt guidance, review updated text
6. Issue 204, follow-up thoughts
7. Issue 206, metagenerator, discussion of current proposals
* Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
<scribe> scribe: janina
<Judy> scribe: Janina
Agenda review; identify scribe.
Issue 30, longdesc, preamble
jb: Not as much time on this yet as I had hoped ...
... Do expect a coordination chat later today to include this topic
... Asking Laura whether she is out on vacation next week?
lc: Yes. Week of Aug 13
jb: And, I'm on vacation this week
... Then I'm out again week of Aub 20
... Believe we're agreed that adding a Preamble would be helpful. Do not yet have a draft, expect one later this week.
... Janina and I were revisiting history, esp the feedback review from February last
lc: Yes, he wanted use cases updated and I did that
jb: And there was other feedback. Looking at the history, seems that TF reaffirmation in April may have been focussed on correlation to I204?
... Laura, can you help confirm that we covered all feedback that was requested?
lc: Yes
jb: Thanks, I'll be on it this week and we can cover on this.
... One additional question re rebuttal response, are you open to feedback?
lc: Yes
... Definitely want to make it as strong as I can.
jb: After those two we can consider whether we want to lay in summary overview lang at the top layer to make the arguments clearer to people viewing the change
proposal.
... Hopeful something within a week or two of the 17th is OK, but we need to see I204 decision first.
jf: Do we know when we will have a 204 decision?
jb: Believe they intend to wrap 204 quickly
... It isn't necessarily just which of the two CPs they adopt, but also what assertions they might make in their decision.
... For instance there seems to be a continuing understanding that 204 can satisfy longer text description requirements.
jf: Seems we would want a week or two after the 204 decision to deal with fallout?
jb: So, if it's out this week, we still need time to digest it, and consider how to address any assertions that might cause misunderstandings with regard to the
context for issue 30.
... At the WG call Sam was suggesting perhaps something like 204 decision plus X number of weeks
... Did we not decide we were going to revisit the long text description reqs?
... Understand last week was very busy
... That is the other piece we need, though. A clear, systematic statement of the reqs
jf: I was supposed to do that by today, but it has slipped, sorry.
... I have been pulled further into 206 than I anticipated, it's true.
jb: So, can you do it this week? Independent of these other pieces?
jf: Yes
jb: Perhaps by TF on Thursday?
jf: Probably--will try.
<JF> will try HARD
js: PF will want to review.
jb: Yes, and we can tweak here next week as well
... Don't believe there's anything else on 30 for now? ...
<JF> current requirments text: http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Verbose_desc_reqs#Requirements
Issue 31b, buggy alts and buggy alt guidance, review updated text
Issue 30, longdesc, preamble
js: One more important piece is the decision on 194. While not proposing possible approaches on handling longer text descriptions, it may make assertions that we need
to consider, and we don't know what they're going to say, or how they will reason their conclusions.
jb: Is there a particular concern re 194?
js: I can't predict. It's as much as the reasoning applied that matters.
jf: There are two different design approaches on 194.
jb: Since decision on 194 is already made, or close, and certainly survey has closed, we should ask and we should look at it.
... Also want to be sure we explore the importance of supporting established W3C a11y tech, that has users.
... Implementers have an obligation here
Issue 31b, buggy alts and buggy alt guidance, review updated text
<Judy> http://www.davidmacd.com/WCAG/WAI/buggy.html
jb: I'm finding this looks so much clearer than before. Thanks, David!
... One additional tweak -- the last two columns in the first table -- Can you swap them?
<Judy> h1 Analyis of alt guidance and alts in HTML5 specification
<Judy> h2 Analysis of alt guidance
<Judy> h2 Analysis of alts
Issue 204, follow-up thoughts
jb: Thanks, John, for the test page
... Janina, you also emphasized a particular point on that
js: Here's my key comment on the WBS:
Janina Sajka Objection: It is inappropriate to base any HTML 5 behavior on the current ARIA specifications because the current ARIA specifications are normative for
HTML 4 only. Work has not yet begun on ARIA for HTML 5, except as has been negotiated with the PF-WG expressly for use in HTML 5 specifications. If the HTML-WG wishes
to negotiate additional ARIA
behavior fr its HTML 5 specifications, iat should propose the particulars to the PF-WG.
<David> me/ OK done... http://www.davidmacd.com/WCAG/WAI/buggy.html
<laura> Great job David. Thanks for all of your work.
<laura> Bye. Have to go now.
Issue 206, metagenerator, discussion of current proposals
js: In conversation with Mike this morning we agreed it might be best to undo meta generator first as no one appears to be supporting it any longer
jf: Agree and suggested this to Mike
... Believe everyone's in agreement on that, Hickson, Henry, everyone
... What the something else is is still very much in discussion
<JF> http://malform.no/testing/html5/img-role-vs-alt/
jf: Cooking up a proposal for a default accessible-name
Summary of Action Items
[End of minutes]
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.136 (CVS log)
$Date: 2012/08/07 18:58:28 $
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Scribe.perl diagnostic output
[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.136 of Date: 2011/05/12 12:01:43
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/
Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)
Succeeded: s/Looking at the history/And there was other feedback. Looking at the history/
Succeeded: s/the argument flow smooth/the arguments clearer to people viewing the change proposal/
Succeeded: s/and consider implications/and consider how to address any assertions that might cause misunderstandings with regard to the context for issue 30/
Found Scribe: janina
Found Scribe: Janina
Inferring ScribeNick: janina
Default Present: Janina, Judy, David_MacDonald, John_Foliot, Laura_Carlson
Present: Janina Judy David_MacDonald John_Foliot Laura_Carlson
Regrets: Laura
WARNING: No meeting title found!
You should specify the meeting title like this:
<dbooth> Meeting: Weekly Baking Club Meeting
Got date from IRC log name: 07 Aug 2012
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/08/07-text-minutes.html
People with action items:
WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.
[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]
--
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/
Received on Wednesday, 8 August 2012 05:04:36 UTC