See also: IRC log
<janina> trackbot, start meeting
<trackbot> Date: 30 May 2013
<janina> Meeting: HTML-A11Y Task Force Teleconference
<scribe> scribe: JF
zakim: agenda?
zakim: take up agenda
<scribe> scribe: JF
JS: we should probably update on
this, however Steve F is not here
... I still have an open item to do on this
... expect that this will be discussed at next leadership call,
Steve has a good plan but we need to get to the doing of it
JS: for those who may not have
heard - Mozilla has announced that they will provide native
support to longdesc
... sent an email to the list regarding this earlier today
Status is that since last meeting Chaals declared that with no oppostion that we will publish the draft
the CFC has emerged at the html wg,with some positive responses, and no objections
based on how it is going, PF will likely ask the HTML WG to move forward
we have to get this draft published by next week. if we cannot do so we run into a moratorium for a number of weeks - we are under a time-crunch
PC: the CFC that went to the HTML WG includes a full working week (sans holidays) thus it closes next Tuesday
me/ thanks Mark
s/ me/ thanks Mark/
PC: suggests that Janina respond
to the HTML WG when confident of PF support. Paul will ensure
that the Chairs issue the WG decisions ASAP. Suggest to also
coordinate with the Team Contact to get document published
quickly
... will work to help to facilitate that, will coordinate with
Robin, Chaals, Mike smith, Mark, et al
... any discussion around late-breaking bugs against
longdesc?
MS: discussed at bug triage call yesterday - they were editorial and I suspect that Chaals has addressed them and closed them already
JS: any other longdesc items?
JS: any reports regarding this? we will likely focus on this in a few weeks time.
PC: there is a thread asking
about how they will deal with the summary from Robin. What
order might the chairs be doing the material?
... Chairs had hoped to do this before today.
... current thought is to do a 'global' CFC that will run for a
month to address Robins list from the F2F
interested to know if a month is sufficient for the TF to review Robin's document?
JS: suspect that we will have a good sense of reliable implementations - should be able to identify that during the month of June
If that is all that is required by then, we should be OK
JF: feels that the time line is adequate, but we ne3ed to get going. Do we have any dates, timelines, milestones?
JS: we had talked about adding it
to each call. The previous plan was to schedule some "special
calls" in June to do this
... also suggestion that we use our matrix as a starting point
for the review
so I beleive we are at the point of needing to schedule some calls
JF: sounds like a plan, lets start.
JS: So, for scheduling a call -
should we start a WBS survey and see who is available when ASk
for availability
... suggest to ask Mark to set up a survey
JF: Mark?
Action on MarkS to set up a WBS survey to determine a good time for the review meetings
<trackbot> Error finding 'on'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/users>.
ACTION MarkS to set up a WBS survey to determine a good time for the review meetings
<trackbot> Created ACTION-183 - Set up a WBS survey to determine a good time for the review meetings [on Mark Sadecki - due 2013-06-06].
JF: need to coordinat a sub-team call
PC: have started to review this, but do not expect a CFC for last call before the moratorium
JS: there are some concerns from
PF, and they asked that we flag this at the TF - we should
ensure that it receives a good review
... who might we be able to enlist to start the review
Perhaps Geoff at WGBH
SF: perhaps Andrew Kirkpatrick
JS: he may beg off as a new co-chair of WCAG
JF: suggest that this might be another topic for a media sub-team discussion - perhaps Silvia P
JS: suspect that this is much Triage as "text" bugs
MS: the bug triage team took oa few weeks off to accommodate scheduling issues, resumed yesterday
added some new memebers
MS: started to review and tagged a few new bugs, list not handy
JS: did mention that all the bugs against longdesc were addressed yesterday
MS: correct
JS: we had looked to address the Alt text issue and set the AAPI issues aside until then
SF: Have made some significant progress on updating the Alt text content. Have asked for some review, and when I return to that effort I will continue to ask for that review assistance
SF If you are familiar with the older work, you should be pretty much up-to-date
I have looked to simplify some of the content/examples
If it goes, as suspected, back into 5.0, it will likely age more gracefully
JS: sounds like a good set of criteria
SF I have done 7 of the sub-sections already, not significant changes, mostly editorial
a lot of the examples includes images, so for sighted folks who are attempting to understand what it going on, they have actual 'real world' examples
obviously for non-sighted users itr is more difficult - I have provided what I consider good examples
JF: asking about the intersection of longer textual descriptions in the Text alternative doucment and longdesc
SF: I am talking about some of the issues that were in the spec, and some of the issues that were raised - i.e. the "Spagetti Monster" example
so not so much the Alt Text doc., but rather examples in the HTML 5.0 spec
SF: so often all I've done is to tweek some of the text, and added an "appropriate" image - sometimes cleaned up the code examples, it sometimes looked a bit "tacky" so mostly a buff and polish
JS: to be clear here, this is work happening on the 5.1 trunk, and the plan is that after review to look to back-port this to 5.0
DM: Bruce Baily and I went through the Alt Text doucment and did a full pass and made some notes/comments
should we be leveraging those and adding them as individual bugs, or is there another process we should follow?
SF: there are 2 documents and the plan is somewhat vague
some have normative documents that will become informative
I have been taking some examples and adding them to the html spec
DM: should we send over the document that we were working on? Of file bugs
DM do you want us to put it in the bug process, or just forward it to yo
SF: Best that the stuff in the HTML spec be reviewed in context, and file bugs against that
SF then look at the review of that, and take it back to the Alt Text doucment and go from there
DM: OK, will look at the 5.1 edits, and comment there
SF: plan on sending out an email of all the alt text edits taht have happened and ask for review against them
JS: reminder that all the work is happening in the 5.1 spec
SF: When you start looking at the advice... one of the things I have done is making a note "To be worked on" as an editorial comment
PC: just to note that I did my action item, and email went out now
JS: some administriva touch-points - any items/issues to report?
MS: no news to report. still working on work force statement
JS: we have some other items, but Chaals should be here (Open ACtion Items)
SF: notes we only have 9 minutes
JS: take back the time?
... adjorn early
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.138 of Date: 2013-04-25 13:59:11 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/loist/list/ Succeeded: s/hear4d/heard/ Succeeded: s/hoe/have/ FAILED: s/ me/ thanks Mark/ Succeeded: s/Ramen/Robin/ Succeeded: s/revi8ew/review/ Succeeded: s/thta/that/ Succeeded: s/SFG/SF/ Found Scribe: JF Inferring ScribeNick: JF Found Scribe: JF Inferring ScribeNick: JF WARNING: No "Present: ... " found! Possibly Present: Apple DM David David_MacDonald IPcaller JF JS John_Foliot LJWatson MS MarkS MichaelC Microsoft P4 PC Ralph SF SteveF SuzanneT_regrets darobin davidb hober inserted janina paulc trackbot You can indicate people for the Present list like this: <dbooth> Present: dbooth jonathan mary <dbooth> Present+ amy Found Date: 30 May 2013 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2013/05/30-html-a11y-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]