- From: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>
- Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 10:21:42 -0800
- To: <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Colleagues, The minutes from today's a11yTF call can be found at: http://www.w3.org/2012/02/16-html-a11y-minutes.html ...or as plain text after this notice. Cheers! JF *********************** W3C - DRAFT - HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference 16 Feb 2012 See also: IRC log Attendees Present Janina_Sajka, Michael_Cooper, Paul_Cotton, Judy_Brewer, John_Foliot, Mike_Smith, Rich_Schwerdtfeger, David_MacDonald Regrets Léonie_Watson, Steve_Faulkner Chair Janina_Sajka Scribe jf Contents Topics Issue-199 ARIA Attributes Processing http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/199 Issue-202 Fig-Caption Word Count http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/202 Issue-203 Media Element Text Description http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/203 Issue-31 Reconsideration Request http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/movealt Issue-30 & (now) Issue-204 Discussion Summary of Action Items <trackbot> Date: 16 February 2012 <janina> trackbot, start meeting <trackbot> Meeting: HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference <trackbot> Date: 16 February 2012 <janina> Meeting: HTML-A11Y Task Force Teleconference <scribe> scribe: jf <MichaelC> scribe: JF Issue-199 ARIA Attributes Processing http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/199 <MichaelC> ARIA Attribute Processing Change Proposal Michael C: added a link to the Change proposal pages reviewed Issue 199 last thursday. due date today, feels it is ready to roll JS: we usually send an email to the chairs advising of new CP <paulc> Is this about 191 or 199? JS: may want to flag as a TF Proposal, but likely want to give people a bit of time MC: this should be complete - there may be a small bit of editorial tweaking, but do not expect substantive changes Issue-202 Fig-Caption Word Count http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/202 JS: notes that all CP's required have been filed, so we are in good shape JB: plans to file a CP against Issue 202 before end of day hope to revisit soon Issue-203 Media Element Text Description http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/203 JS: discussed process last week on HTML WG telecon notion to make Issue 203 conditional on Issue 30 plan is to submit at CP by Saturday, but note relationship to issue 30. Chairs will set aside until issue 30 resolved Issue-31 Reconsideration Request http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/movealt JS: several of us have worked on this, however SF got it together and submitted by last week's deadline it is undergoing a number of editorial changes, but proposes 2 things 1) asks for guidance in the HTML5 Draft be removed and instead point to the alt text document 2) notes that the guidance is language agnostic - relevant to both HTML as well as PDF, SVG, Word docs, etc., thus requests that it be moved to WCAG <janina> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/movealt JS: suggestion is that this group bring forward an opinion on this - notes there are some minor tweaks and editorial changes to come (spelling mistakes) ... expects that the TF would be interested in perfecting the proposal and supporting it more formally (members reviewing the CP now) JB: has 1 concern, will expand on that momentarily ... we had previously discussed an approach and do not recall ever discussing this as a joint submission thought the intent was that this be a deliverable managed by the WCAG WG, with input from any interested party, as some of the guidance *does* go beyond HTML thus having this jointly managed by the htmlwg could be difficult given that there has been some conflict in the past - this could impact on other groups JF: suggests that it be moved to PFWG, administered by WCAG JB: WAI has a smooth work flow to manage who looks after what so letting WCAG manage this is likely appropriate, and they have the bandwidth to do this WCAG WG can coordinate input from other interested parties they can also look at this in terms of normative vs advisory, etc. what is key is appropriate positioning of things <janina> [Dnq? so put forward a proposal as to where this should be placed, and then discuss those merits JS: sounds like this proposal is finding favor, with 1 change, to remove the "Joint" management indication next step to put out a 48 hr survey. Are we ready to do so? DM: has one concern, that the CP seems to cause some inciting some combativeness JB: this is a matter of record of the bugs and rejection pattern, and the fact that the problem does still exist JS: one of the basis for the request for consideration was a specific request of noting the pattern of rejections <janina> DRAFT: The HTML-A11Y Task Force supports the Issue-31 reconsideration proposal at: <janina> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/movealt <janina> provided it is modified to propose the Alt Techniques document become a deliverable of the WCAG WG. CS: sounds good DM suggests "as amended" JS: we have permission to amend from SF already (MC making minor edits to the wiki RESOLUTION: The HTML-A11Y Task Force supports the Issue-31 reconsideration proposal at: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/movealt PC: given that this will land in the Chairs inbox soon, suggests some feedback <MichaelC> ^ note this resolution was made on revision id 12141 Notes a relationship to WCAG, but this new document will not be part of WCAG, but rather a new document related to WCAG cautions about the rational - quote "New version of WCAG" end quote CS: the design of WCAG is that we do not create a new document, but rather add and adjust new techniques MC: the argument also includes a number of documents in a suite that = WCAG, thus updating any 1 doc creates a "new" version of WCAG CS: the addition of new documents to WCAG follows the pattern of "Living Spec" PC: that is an important point that needs to be underscored, so that the Chairs and others are clear on WCAG evolution JB": is there a way to version up the wording so that it includes the intended change, with language that clarifies the impact on WCAG PC: the chairs are moving fairly swiftly on re-open requests. Likely by this friday this will be high on the review list by the chairs JB: question around word-smithing DM: is there value in talking about normative/non-normative <MichaelC> My proposal was that WCAG 2.0, Understanding WCAG 2.0, and Techniques for WCAG 2.0" constitute the "WCAG 2.0 Suite" and an update to any of them constitutes and "update to WCAG" CS: suggest that WCAG was built to accomodate change via the techniques section (1 of 3 in the "suite") - Living Spec portion JS: suggest we finish this off line, and then submit the resolution after that <MichaelC> Cynthia pointed out that publishing updates to Techniques for WCAG 2.0 is the mechanism by which WCAG 2.0 is a "living document" while still being normative JS: any URIs that can be included will also strengthen the language <MichaelC> HTML 5 Techniques for WCAG 2.0 Task Force <MichaelC> Starter set of HTML 5 techniques for WCAG 2.0 <janina> DRAFT: The HTML-A11Y Task Force supports the Issue-31 reconsideration proposal at: <janina> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/movealt RESOLUTION: The HTML-A11Y Task Force supports the Issue-31 reconsideration proposal at: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/movealt with the edits regarding WCAG discussed and minuted from today's teleconference zakim; next item <Judy> http://www.w3.org/2012/02/14-text-minutes.html Issue-30 & (now) Issue-204 Discussion JB: concern about process, and next step will be request of procedural issues concerns discussion on splitting longdesc decision over some protests lack of coordination also puts ARIA-describedby issue ahead of Issue 30, concern about timing issue also proposes a change on ARIA (work of another WG) without consultation or coordination need to talk about coordination efforts JB: invites others to review information in the minutes from the text sub-team call Summary of Action Items [End of minutes]
Received on Thursday, 16 February 2012 18:22:35 UTC