- From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 14:52:01 -0500
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>
typo: "Sam, are ready for the HTML WG survey." Should be: "Sam, we are ready for the HTML WG survey". Best Regards, Laura On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Judy and all, > > After the Text Team meeting today you asked me switch the overlay text > from the talk page into the main CP page, because as noted in today's > text team meeting we have not only affirmed consensus on the new > overlay text for the longdesc change proposal but also once again > reaffirmed task force consensus on the the proposal itself [1]. > > I have swapped in the new overlay text as you and the text team requested. > > Sam, are ready for the HTML WG survey. > > Best Regards, > Laura > > On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> wrote: >> >> Minutes from the Text Subteam teleconference of the HTML-A11Y Task Force on Tuesday 18 September are provided below as text, and are available as hypertext at: >> >> http://www.w3.org/2012/09/18-text-minutes.html >> >> W3C >> >> - DRAFT - >> >> SV_MEETING_TITLE >> >> 18 Sep 2012 >> >> See also: IRC log >> >> Attendees >> >> Present >> Regrets >> Chair >> judy >> >> Scribe >> janina >> >> Contents >> >> * Topics >> 1. Issue 206, metagenerator exemption removed, status of remaining 206 explorations >> 2. Confirm next meeting; identify next scribe; adjourn >> 3. Agenda review; identify scribe. >> 4. Issue 30, longdesc, discussion of comments received on call for consensus >> * Summary of Action Items >> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ >> >> Issue 206, metagenerator exemption removed, status of remaining 206 explorations >> >> <scribe> scribe: janina >> >> Confirm next meeting; identify next scribe; adjourn >> >> Agenda review; identify scribe. >> >> <Judy> scribe = janina >> >> <Judy> scribe=janina >> >> <Judy> scribe:janina >> >> Issue 30, longdesc, discussion of comments received on call for consensus >> >> jb: Appear to have many comments on list re longdesc, but not on the lang we asked for comments on >> >> <laura> Two actionable comments. >> >> jb: Have people had a chance to catch up on the thread? >> ... Anyone not up to speed? >> >> <laura> 1. Janina found a two typos in the overlay, that I fixed. >> >> <laura> 2. Chaals said he could live with the overlay text as is and offered some text for improvement. I would like to go through these in the meeting today. >> >> <laura> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012Sep/0192.html >> >> [answer: mostly caught up] >> >> jb: So, any edits? >> >> lc: Janina had typos, Chaas had substantive >> >> <laura> Janina's message: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012Sep/0139.html >> >> jb: Any comments on Chaas suggestions >> >> janina: They were on the substance in the CP, not on the wrapper text >> >> lc: Perhaps too detailed as well >> ... Mainly rewording what we have >> >> jb: MDid his comments influence the disucssion? >> >> janina: Don't think so >> >> lc: agree >> >> jb: Would Chaas comments change anyone else's approach? >> >> jf: Chaas raised some good points, kicked off wider discussion >> >> janina: My sense of the comments of the past few days on this thread have recapped the arguments of the past few years succinctly >> >> jf: The obsolete req falls on authors >> ... They're trying to impose an authoring requirement where they don't have a workable approach >> ... "Obsolete but conforming" means authors shouldn't use, but user agents will still support >> ... It will throw an error >> >> jb: My hope had been that people would look more closely at the overview provided >> >> lc: So, what to do with Chaas comments? >> >> [review of comments on thread in progress] >> >> [Steve abstained] >> >> [we're reviewing comments and working on a summary] >> >> <Judy> [DRAFT] Summary of feedback received: nine respondents affirmed or re-affirmed their support for the InstateLongdesc change proposal (two with suggested edits >> but who also affirmed their support without those changes) [Gez L, David M, Josh O'C, Geoff F, Charles MN, Leif S, Laura C, Leonie W, John F]; two people supported >> with proposed edits which in fact had already been applied to the change proposal in the past, and are therefore already included in the CP [Sil >> >> <Judy> s/was received/were received/ >> >> <Judy> s/note appear/not appear/ >> >> <Judy> s/intended these/intended those/ >> >> <Judy> jb double-checking several comments.... >> >> <Judy> jb: "supported with proposed edits" is not correct. >> >> <Judy> changing text... >> >> <Judy> [redraft] two people proposed edits without stating support but their suggestions had already been incorporated in the past... >> >> <Judy> draft with corrections: >> >> <Judy> [DRAFT] Summary of feedback received: nine respondents affirmed or re-affirmed their support for the InstateLongdesc change proposal (two with suggested edits >> but who also affirmed their support without those changes) [Gez L, David M, Josh O'C, Geoff F, Charles MN, Leif S, Laura C, Leonie W, John F]; two people proposed >> edits without stating support but their suggestions had already been incorporated in the past [Silvia Pf, Rich S]; one abstained and his suggestions had also already >> been incorporated [Steve F]; two t >> >> <Judy> [final summary of comments received by response deadline] Summary of feedback received: nine respondents affirmed or re-affirmed their support for the >> InstateLongdesc change proposal (two with suggested edits but who also affirmed their support without those changes) [Gez L, David M, Josh O'C, Geoff F, Charles MN, >> Leif S, Laura C, Leonie W, John F]; two people proposed edits without stating support but their suggestions had already been incorporated in the past [ >> >> jb: Reminding that last Thursday's TF call agreed that Text Subteam could process comments on behalf of TF >> ... Further notes that all TF were invited to the Text call >> ... Now appears the preponderance of comments continue to reaffirm TF support for the InstateLongdesc CP on Issue-30 >> ... Also note that several comments received speak to further development for an enhanced longer description mechanism >> ... Regret we did not get to buggy alt topic, note we have update from David >> >> <laura> Yes! longdesc on <picture>, <video> etc. >> >> Summary of Action Items >> >> [End of minutes] >> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ >> >> Found Scribe: janina >> >> -- >> >> 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/ >> >> > > > > -- > Laura L. Carlson -- Laura L. Carlson
Received on Tuesday, 18 September 2012 19:52:28 UTC