See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 08 November 2012
<janina> Meeting: HTML-A11Y Task Force Teleconference
<Stevef> welcome Ian!
<Stevef> JS: congrats all around
<Stevef> JS: any questions about plan 2014 or new arrangements
<Stevef> JS: Lyon debrief some accessibility topics raised during face 2 face
<scribe> scribe: JF
SteveF: not much discussed around
accessibility at the Lyon F2F
... one topic covered was the outstanding Formal Objections -
two including the Alt Text document and the normative state
believes one of the objections has gone away
Lachlan hunt objected and suggested that it should be suggestive and not normative
seems there will probably be a poll around that
<Stevef> scribe
<Stevef> JB: talked to PLH, ownership of the alt text document still needs to be determined, what needs to happen re alt text in HTML5 needs to be resolved
<Stevef> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Nov/0048.html
<Stevef> JS: what is in html5 on alt was not discussed
<Stevef> JS: we can still move forward with plans
<Stevef> JB: not correct on/note
<chaals> s//\/ or/
<scribe> scribe: JF
SteveF: also presented the idea of the <main> attribute
general impression was that while nobody was jumping up and down, there appeard to be support, and Steve got some useful feedback
<Stevef> JS: we have a proposed extension spcification - longdesc spec
<Stevef> JS: remind everyone in plan 2014 that basic functionality is covered but not get in the way of those that want to move on newer features on this subject
<Judy> s/not correct on note/most important difference between Note and Rec is informativity vs normativity; some Notes are indeed stabilized snapshots following iterations of Working Drafts, but Recs are more set in stone.
<Stevef> CMN: basic spec lays out what longdesc does on img elements, tries to follow the exisiting implementation, essentially same as HTML4
<Stevef> CMN: idea of spec is not to do anything new or clever to get the spec through the process, go through to CR on basis of current implementations browsers/AT/ etc
<Stevef> CMN: if anyone wants to do something better then they can, until/if this occurs longdesc may be dropped
<Stevef> CMN: undertakes to write test cases
<Stevef> JF: NVDA will now support longdesc attribute
<Stevef> JS: question to group is whether this spec is sufficient ot be a first public working draft
<Stevef> DMc: pointing to info in page is new?
<Stevef> CMN: has been specced this way originally
<Stevef> DMc: has anyone else ever seen this implemented?
<Stevef> JB: thanks chaals for extension spec, I have a few thoughts, succint use cases and requirments is good, has not looked at carefully yet, suggest everybody takes a good look and review it
<Stevef> JB: encourage all to read and understand the a11y taskforce provisions in plan 2014
<Stevef> http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/html5-2014-plan.html
<Stevef> JB: is it worth saying in spec that this may end up co-existing in ARIA 1.1 (for example)?
<Stevef> JB: so people looking at it will have a better understanding of possible futire plans
<Zakim> chaals, you wanted to say I don;t think the spec should look at predicting future work.
<Stevef> JB: should extra informative links be added
<Stevef> CMN: don't think its needed, inofrmative references doesnt feel strongly either way
<Stevef> JB: I don't have impression that any understanding that taskforce will be doing with longer description mechanisms in general
<Stevef> JB: based on conversations it may be useful to add information about future long desc mechanisms
<Stevef> JB: is there anything that needs to be said on how longdesc will play well with other long description mechanisms
<Stevef> JS: is it necessary to resolve all this before FPWD?
<Stevef> CMN: shoudl we put something in spec, should we say it plays nicely etc, we will have to start anticipating other mechanisms
<Stevef> CMN: I think it's unnecessary work to try predicting that might come true, any future feature should cope with legacy longdesc
<Stevef> CMN: adding in spec will not change opinions on what taskforce thinks on mechanisms
<Stevef> JB: doesn't feel the need to press the point of including the intent in the spec itself, but would encourage taskforce chairs to try to communicate as needed when we get to publication discussion
<Stevef> JF: agrees with chaals
<Stevef> JF: the way we communicate around this doc is important
<Stevef> JS: homework assignment to taskforce is the doc ready for FPWD, by agreement when publsihed the obsolete defintion in HTML5 goes away
<Stevef> JS: so issue for a number of institutions goes away
<Stevef> JS: patent and test process need to run, in meantime improvements to spec can occur
<Stevef> JS: propose that we as a taskforce can make that decision by next thursday
+1 to JS
<Stevef> JS: call for consensus is a full week to decide on moving to publish
<Stevef> JB: the context is important for people to understand provision in plan 2014 for 'willful violations' of HTML5
<Stevef> JB: status label on spec is good for review by taskforce perhaps wait another week for CFC
<Stevef> JB:walk the decision process very carefully, given that Task Force publication of an extension requires approval by both PFWG and HTML WG, if there is an objection that comes up in HTML WG then we should make sure that people are aware, since the HTML WG Co-Chairs would expect that objection to have been brought through the TF
<Stevef> JS: may need support staff to help with spec verbiage
<Stevef> JS: if we can get people to do due diligence this week we could start consensus clock next week
<Stevef> JS: will take action to inform HTML WG and PF
<Stevef> ACTION: janina2 inform HTML WG and PF about inpending CFC on longdesc spec [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/08-html-a11y-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find janina2. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/users>.
<Stevef> ACTION: janina inform HTML WG and PF about inpending CFC on longdesc spec [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/08-html-a11y-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-145 - Inform HTML WG and PF about inpending CFC on longdesc spec [on Janina Sajka - due 2012-11-15].
<Stevef> JS: issues 194 and 203 about long text descriptions for media, not resolved before plan 2014
<Stevef> JS: there is an accessibility requirment to support transcripts, but need resolution, one path forward is to create 2 extension specs on current options and put them on table (for issue 194)
<Stevef> JS: talking about issue 203
<Stevef> JS: are there other things to work on?
<Stevef> JS: any questions around 194 and 203
<Stevef> JF: re issue 203 one of the things that emerged was that we could also use longdesc to satisfy requirement, suggest longdesc for solving this
<Stevef> CMN: plans to take action itme to review accesskey, suggests not to gate issue 203 on longdesc, shouldinstead put 2 possible approaches we have as specs, then if one of those gets implemented then thats good
<Stevef> JF: we don;t have any proposals for 203
<Stevef> JF: prepared to wait until we have mechanisms ike londesc in place, don;t want to muddy issue at this time
<Stevef> JS: is there more discussion? thanks chaals for taking up accesskey
<Stevef> JS: we are not only given responsibility to work on stuff but also recruit people so we don't have people asking for review after discussion has occured
<Stevef> JS: we need to spread word that taskforce is back at work
<IanPouncey> Thanks all, looking forward to working with you.
<Judy> JB: important to encourage broad stakeholder participation, and good to have more discussion next few meetings on this
<Stevef> RRS agent, make minutes
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.137 of Date: 2012/09/20 20:19:01 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/*yours// WARNING: Bad s/// command: s//\/ or/ Succeeded: s/not correct on rec/not correct on/ FAILED: s/not correct on note/most important difference between Note and Rec is informativity vs normativity; some Notes are indeed stabilized snapshots following iterations of Working Drafts, but Recs are more set in stone./ Succeeded: s/prediciting afuture/I think it's unnecessary work to try predicting/ Succeeded: s/would encourage/doesn't feel the need to press the point of including the intent in the spec itself, but would encourage/ Succeeded: s/given that part of the process involves agreement by both groups PF and HTML/given that Task Force publication of an extension requires approval by both PFWG and HTML WG/ Succeeded: s/then we should make sure pople are aware/then we should make sure that people are aware, since the HTML WG Co-Chairs would expect that objection to have been brought through the TF/ Succeeded: s/CMN: prepared to wait/JF: prepared to wait/ Found Scribe: JF Inferring ScribeNick: JF Found Scribe: JF Inferring ScribeNick: JF Default Present: Janina_Sajka, Michael_Cooper, Steve_Faulkner, Judy, John_Foliot, David_MacDonald, James_Craig, IanPouncey, [IPcaller], chaals, Mike Present: Janina_Sajka Michael_Cooper Steve_Faulkner Judy John_Foliot David_MacDonald James_Craig IanPouncey [IPcaller] chaals Mike Found Date: 08 Nov 2012 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/11/08-html-a11y-minutes.html People with action items: janina janina2 WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]