- From: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
- Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 20:11:30 +0400
- To: "public-html-a11y@w3.org" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Hi, Sorry, the meeting over-ran by a few minutes. Summary: Some outstanding action items are long overdue. Chaals took an action to find out whether they are really outstanding, have been overtaken by events, or just not done. We agreed to meet face to face in parallel with the HTML-WG, at the end of teh week of April 22, in Silicon Valley. Although we will request space to meet on our own, for times when the TF and the WG are working on topics that are not of mutual interest, we expect to meet together at least some of the time. The chairs will be responsible for ensuring that we coordinate with the HTML-WG to make sure there is no reason for misundertsandings on scheduling of topics and the like. We agreed that before requesting FPWD for the Longdesc extension spec we will identify any process issues in Matt's Objection to publishing, and request the HTML-WG resolve those questions directly. We agreed that before we request FPWD we will also develop an agreed TF response to each of the technical issues raised in objection to advancing the specification. We did not discuss the situation regarding guidance on alt text in HTML. Thanks to John Foliot for scribing, the minutes are available at http://www.w3.org/2012/11/29-html-a11y-minutes.html and reproduced below. - DRAFT - HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference 29 Nov 2012 See also: IRC log Attendees Present J_brewer, MichaelC, JFoliot, CynthiaShelley, RichS, Leonie, David_McDonald, PaulC, Ted_(Hober), SteveF Regrets Janina Chair Chaals Scribe JF Contents Topics + find scribe + check action items + Face to face meeting with HTML/Webapps in April, Silicon Valley? + Outcome of CfC to publish longdesc as FPWD + Status of "alt" text in HTML (specification and usage in the document) + Summary of Action Items Chaals: check action items chaals: reviewing items <MichaelC> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/open <scribe> ACTION: 148 to [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/29-html-a11y-minutes.html#action01] <trackbot> Sorry, bad ACTION syntax <chaals> ACTION-148? <trackbot> ACTION-148 -- John Foliot to do a summary of the 2 competing proposals for Issue 194 -- due 2012-11-22 -- OPEN <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/148 JF: still open ... will shoot for next week, should be fine <chaals> ACTION-148: due in 1 week <trackbot> ACTION-148 Do a summary of the 2 competing proposals for Issue 194 notes added <chaals> ACTION-147? <trackbot> ACTION-147 -- Charles McCathie Nevile to organise meeting between co-chairs and HTML editors to see if we can peacefully resolve the alt text guidance issue -- due 2012-11-22 -- OPEN <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/147 ACTION-147 <chaals> ACTION-146? <trackbot> ACTION-146 -- Charles McCathie Nevile to publish updated draft and call for consensus running until Monday 26th -- due 2012-11-22 -- OPEN <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/146 <chaals> ACTION-144? <trackbot> ACTION-144 -- Charles McCathie Nevile to check whether we should be looking into accesskeys as an HTML issue -- due 2012-11-15 -- OPEN <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/144 Chaals: 147, will return to that later in meeting, 146, working forward, 145 on Janina - ignoring this week due to Janina not being here ... 144 is accesskeys, still open and on Chaals <chaals> ACTION-144: . due in 1 week <trackbot> ACTION-144 Check whether we should be looking into accesskeys as an HTML issue notes added Chaals: 143: on Steve F <chaals> ACTION-143? <trackbot> ACTION-143 -- Steve Faulkner to chase ISSUE-194 by getting to FPWD proposals drafted -- due 2012-11-15 -- OPEN <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/143 Steve: had a discussion a few weeks back, attempting to get 1 or more extensions specs written chaals: steves action item is superceded by JF's Action 149 <scribe> ACTION: chaals to follow up old action items and see which remain relevent [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/29-html-a11y-minutes.html#action02] <trackbot> Created ACTION-149 - Follow up old action items and see which remain relevent [on Charles McCathie Nevile - due 2012-12-06]. Face to face meeting with HTML/Webapps in April, Silicon Valley? chaals: looking to have F2F meetings in April - we have been asked if we wish to meet at same time ... is there interest in this at this group? JF: yes Cyns: thinks a great idea, and PF was positive too PLH: at this time there are 3 groups meeting, web apps, WAI-PF and HTML WG question is, when would you like to meet? as there will be some overlap <mhakkinen> ETS would be interested, depending on date (due to other conferences) Cyns: if the HTML WG uses the unconference mode, that worked well chaals: strong preference not to overlap with web apps Judy: noticed at TPAC that when a certain item was scheduled for a time, missed that slot, and then appeared at a different time with short notice - caused some frustration due to gathering up view points, etc. unconference mode has worked well, but if there are specific items, having it scheduled is productive PLH: exact locationg TBC, but F2F will be in the Bay Area (Silicon Valley) chaals: regarding unconference mode we should perhpas ask the HTML WG to run an actual scheduling session at the beginning to ensure we get our own items on the agenda but that we also look to run our own track chaals: ensure that we communicate with Chairs to be sure we have good communication PLH: does this mean this TF needs a seperate room> chaals: not sure - exploring that possibility Cyns: that may not be needed, at last TPAC we did not use/require PLH: last F2F in Silicon Valley only used 1 room, and that seemed to work well chaals: it seemed to work ok, however some of the HTML attendees where unhappy about that depends on the topics suspect that some of our items are of little interest to the larger group, and that some of the HTML WG topics aren't our concerns JUdy: given that this is a few months out, and given that we may have new items between now and then, plus the further de-coupling of things , such as the mandate that the TF now has to advance their own extensions as specs,, likely that having a seperate room for this TF have it's own room, at least part of the time PLH: will ask the host about this, but it should be do-able - very little impact cyns, perhaps 1 day seperate, one day with larger group JF: +1 to cyns ACTION on Chaals to have TF chairs coor4dinate with HTML Chairs on scheduing for F2F in April <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find on. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/users>. Outcome of CfC to publish longdesc as FPWD chaals: we had a CFC set to close before this meeting - we had one set of statements from James Craig saying not fan of Longdesc, plus one objection from Mat Turvey to moving forward ... responded directly to Matt, so perhaps not best to comment, but chaals has a personal position and so may have conflict of interest Judy: ... since I've not followed all of the list discussion, is there a response from Matt to Chaals' response to his initial objections? <paulc> Link to the CFC, please? <paulc> Aside, treat me like Rip van Winkle - away for 4 weeks. stevef: not a huge fan of longedesc, but agree that this should continue to move forward <chaals> http://www.w3.org/mid/CA+ri+VnNPq_DRiQjzm0+v5fDyGnNo5VqPVQWoAr8ukn-cchsBQ@mail.gmail.com -> Call for Consensus to request FPWD as janina pointed out, is part of TF job to provide support and get this out to the WG this is not a <Judy> links to objection? CFC is not whether you agree with longdesc, but rather if we should move forward on the tech spec <chaals> http://www.w3.org/mid/CAFp5+ApBdj-htMGOZQpkChdFJ2Fe3vVrgntnksQ7+PWdaGUVOQ@mail.gmail.com -> objection to publishing from Matt Turvey LjW: just to +1 as the voice of a user, until we have something better lets continue working with this chaals: any ohter comment5s/thoughts? <David> +1 PaulC: looking for the actual URL chaals: pasted into IRC channel ... what we have is a handful of comments, along with a request to modify a specific example <richardschwerdtfeger> copy that chaals: so question is, is Matt's objection sufficient to stop progress, or should we continue to move forward noting Matt's objection SteveF: my understanding is that the TF asks the HTML WG to move this forward there, thus at this time we are looking to ask the WG to continue to work on this there PaulC: generally agree with earlier comments re: technical details don't need to be finished to move forward however in this case, sending this along to the Working Group will simply serve to resurface the same objections so perhaps addressing each each point, and file bugs against each technical objection would be the way forward chaals: replied to each objection as an individual process -wise, the TF needs the WG "consent" to move forward, as the TF does not have mandate to final publication Judy: many of the comments were never formally addressed by the TF, and only ever discussed on the list perhaps this TF should split them out and formally address them <paulc> Note that there is a patent policy implication on FPWD: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-exclusion-with <paulc> This is at least one reason the associated WGs need to approve the publication. JUdy: from my perspective, the better the record we have on how the TF responds to the issues, the stronger the "story" moving forward PaulC: people cannot lose fact re: Patent Policy the TF does not have the same responsabilities in that regard so there are Process requirements for this to go through the WG Chaals: agree that process is that HTML WG to be the formal group that publishes this question over whether the WG has delegated the responsibility for publishing, and it appears not given that this TF will first discuss this, and then have the same debate repeated at the larger WG seems to be a duplication of effort - is there a way to minimize that <Stevef> +1 to pauls suggestion PaulC: believes that original response answered the question: this TF should address all of the technical objections, and leave process objections to the WG Judy: strongly suggest that this TF respond to technical items formally this TF can respond to his objections, and get them on the record cyns: agree with Judy - important that we have a formal record and deal with each item methodically and specirfically also believe we should reach consensus within this group, and that the TF speak with one voice, even if we have divergent views internally we own this, so we need to do a good job with it chaals: straw pol on 2 questions: 1) should we identify all the process questions, and pass those directly to the HTML WG untouched. <chaals> Proposal: We identify process issues in Matt's objection, and ask the HTML WG to deal with those questions <LjW> +1 Cyns: we need to review each question and decide if we believe them to be process or technical <Stevef> +1 +1 <IanPouncey> +1 <paulc> Paul abstains <David> +1 <chaals> cyns: +1 (poll on passing process questions to WG) chaals: any against? <paulc> I need to go to the WG meeting. <chaals> Proposal: We expect to resolve technical objections before requesting FPWD <Stevef> -1 Chaals: 2) identify technical issues and raise bugs on them <Stevef> to resolving every bug Judy: but you need to respond on them as well? <Stevef> " As a Working Draft publication, the document does not need not be complete, to meet all technical requirements, or to have consensus on the contents." chaals: suggest that we propose to identify all technical comments judy: we should also not just identify, and not necessarily resolve, but to respond to all of them ... we should do more than just what the process requires - that we should be on record with substantive responses at the TF cyns: agree that we should also respond - some responses may be - yes, file a bug, or we disagree, or other what is important is that we have a formal record, and responses to all issues chaals: wrapping up have started to file bugs where I have found an issue the big question is, how much consensus do we need to move this forward to the WG seems that the consensus is that until we identify all the technical issues we are not ready so minimum bar is to identify which issues are technical versus process, and formally record them as such we should however actually resolve the issues, not just identify them MichaelC; there is a difference between resolving issues and addressing comments judy: identification is one level, responding all is a second level, resolving is a thrid level SteveF: what is meant by "respond"? Judy: chaals has responded as an individual - does this TF accept those responsesas the voice of the TF? <Judy> s/does this TF accept those respopnses as the voice of the TF?/the TF can consider those as draft responses, or amend or expand those/ <chaals> Provisional Resolution: We expect to agree on a task for response to each technical issue before requesting FPWD Status of "alt" text in HTML (specification and usage in the document) deferred to next meeting Summary of Action Items [NEW] ACTION: 148 to [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/29-html-a11y-minutes.html#action01] [NEW] ACTION: chaals to follow up old action items and see which remain relevent [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/29-html-a11y-minutes.html#action02] ACTION on Chaals to have TF chairs coor4dinate with HTML Chairs on scheduing for F2F in April [End of minutes] -- Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex chaals@yandex-team.ru Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Thursday, 29 November 2012 19:12:09 UTC