See also: IRC log
<chaals> trackbot, start meeting
<trackbot> Meeting: HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference
<trackbot> Date: 26 February 2015
<chaals> chair: Chaals
<scribe> scribenick: LJWatson
JS: Note the US time change at the start of March.
JS: Next week is CSUN.
CMN: Several TF people will be there. Do we meet next week?
JB: Do we have critical items to do next week?
CMN: How many people at CSUN would not be able to attend?
LW: No couldn't.
CMN: Suggest cancelling meeting, unless it turns out to be urgent.
<chaals> RESOLUTION: No meeting expected next week. Note for non-US residents, time will change the week after for most.
PLH: It is still uncertain
whether the whole WG will meet. But two of the task forces
will.
... The media and editing TFs.
... A full WG meeting may happen later.
<ShaneM> I cannot make that meeting
<chaals> [me]
CMN: If this TF wants to meet, we should let the chairs know?
PLH: Yes soon.
CMN: Who on the call could attend?
LW: Yes.
<liam> LQ: no
LQ: No
JF: If we reach critical mass, yes.
CMN: Propose we request a meeting
there. Call for agenda items.
... If sufficient people can make it we'll go
ahead.
<chaals> ACTION: CHaals to call for consensus on whether to meet with the other HTML task forces in Redmond, 15-16 april [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/02/26-html-a11y-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-309 - Call for consensus on whether to meet with the other html task forces in redmond, 15-16 april [on Charles McCathie Nevile - due 2015-03-05].
RS: Couldn't make it.
<chaals> RESOLUTION: We will call for consensus and see if we get critical mass (and a useful agenda), on attending the F2F meeting in Redmond 15-16 April
JB: There will be news.
CMN: CFC is out. Believe most
people have responded.
... Contentious pieces are the Alt doc, and the ARIA
stuff.
... Does anyone have thoughts on the ARIA stuff, or wait for
the CFC outcome?
RS: ARIA stuff?
CMN: I'm only happy with the TF
having ARIA deliverables if the work is done only in TF, not PF
and TF.
... Don't want them done in three groups. If PF wants to shift
the work here, or HTML likewise, it seems reasonable.
... Given that we haven't previously done the work, including
this TF doesn't seem sensible.
RS: The same people work on it, so it doesn't really matter where we put it.
CMN: Yes.
JS: I'm seriously opposed to creating two classes of work activity between PF and HTML.
<Judy> +
CMN: In principle I agree, in practice the ARIA/HTML mappings doc has been done outside of this TF without problem.
JS: Don't think that's a correct
reflection of the history.
... Paul was strongly opposed to moving it out of the TF.
JB: I see no harm in tracking it in the TF.
<JF> +1 to tracking
CMN: Agree we should track. We track all HTML, so anything done there is tracked here.
JS: It's a joint deliverable between PF and HTML.
CMN: Happy to list it as a thing we track.
JB: Suggest we take this offline to the co-ordination call.
CMN: Agreed.
<chaals> RESOLUTION: TF coordinators to work out what to do about ARIA HTML mappings.
was strongly opposed of moving 4
CMN: Hope everyone has read
it.
... Questions? Concerns?
JB: Note earlier concerns, and
understand Robin has made changes - but have not had time to
review the very latest.
... Bug handling, ability for TF to continue instead of CG, and
the status of deliverables being considered on recc track from
CGs.
... Also mechanisms for cross-review including
accessibility.
<chaals> ack meack ri
<chaals> a/ack meack ri/
RS: Intent is to be open and allow more people to participate. What is the job of the HTML WG then?
JB: My understanding is that
they're not under W3C process, which can be useful for
incubating ideas, but the absence of process can be difficult
as things become more formalised.
... Robin has been proactive in responding to these
concerns.
... The deliverable from a CG is known as a "final report" or
"final specification" which can be confusing.
... I'd heard the aim was to get more focused involvement, not
wider participation.
<Zakim> chaals, you wanted to support Judy's concerns and suggest that I coordinate with Robin to see whether these are going into the plan, and ask him (or other HTML team) to attend
RS: If all the HTML wg does is push out a spec that's not interesting to me.
CMN: TFs or CGs are likely to be
the places where things happen, not the WG.
... I support Judy's concerns. Suggest I co-ordinate with
Robin, check the status, and ask him to attend another
meeting.
PLH: Encourage you to invite Robin to another meeting.
JB: Robin is trying to address
all these concerns. We should give him help to get the words
clear enough in the plan.
... Giving specific feedback would be useful.
RS: Going to a CG is a bit "wild west". The issue is that the groups don't want to address accessibility. Don't want any CG to create something that hasn't addressed accessibility from the beginning.
<Zakim> liam, you wanted to note a CG doesn't get a W3C team contact either, for what it's worth, so not clear on future coordination
RS: Needs to be something in the CG process to stop accessibility being forgotten.
LQ: CGs do not have a W3C team contact.
<Zakim> Judy, you wanted to speak to Rich's point wrt conversations w Robin so far
JB: Robin, Philippe and I have
discussed this. The concern has been acknowledged and solutions
are being explored.
... We hope the Web Technology Accessibility Guidelines will be
useful.
... Also requiring the CGs to conduct reviews and rough
determination that accessiblity had been considered, before
bringing a deliverable to the HTML WG.
<Zakim> chaals, you wanted to say coming back with a proposal for a CR requires a transition approval from the director, so I expect W3C to take that seriously (and believe Robin does too)
CMN: We would expect the CG to be able to demonstrate how accessibility had been considered, as part of requesting a document transition. Suggest we close this with me co-ordinating with Robin.
<Judy> [Judy: Robin has said that he is updating it real-time as he gets suggestions, but agree that the plan to follow up to confirm all suggestions are taken in, are great.]
RS: Someone should have
responsibility in each CG for accessibility.
... At IBM we have a review board. We sometimes help product
teams work on accessibility, and PF is moving towards this
architecture model where we can do deep dives to help groups
move forward
CMN: THink we should consider this.
<chaals> ACTION: chaals to coordinate with Robin, find out when the plan will have taken account of concerns expressed and invite Robin to a TF meeting at that point to explain it to us. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/02/26-html-a11y-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-310 - Coordinate with robin, find out when the plan will have taken account of concerns expressed and invite robin to a tf meeting at that point to explain it to us. [on Charles McCathie Nevile - due 2015-03-05].
JF: We could monitor new CGs, if we see one that's working on an area with a11y implications, very often a member of PF will join the CG to help. Think we have a decent net in place already.
<chaals> ACTION: chaals to coordinate with Robin, find out when the plan will have taken account of concerns expressed and invite Robin to a TF meeting at that point to explain it to us. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/02/26-html-a11y-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-311 - Coordinate with robin, find out when the plan will have taken account of concerns expressed and invite robin to a tf meeting at that point to explain it to us. [on Charles McCathie Nevile - due 2015-03-05].
JB: We're always trying to evolve
how we co-ordinate the areas where accessibility
intersects.
... Think Rich is suggesting having someone invested in each CG
and reporting back to PF.
<Zakim> Judy, you wanted to comment on internal accessibility architecture review board, and APA WG charter
JB: The PF charter is out for review.
RS: It's with the AC reps?
JB: Yes all the WAI charters went out for review at the start of the week.
SF: Alt doc, think it's better to avoid duplication of effort.
<Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to discuss how edits might get introduced to html 5.1
CMN: Don't mind either way. With
the new HTML plan it occurs to me this TF could work directly
on that part of the HTML spec.
... Agree the advice should be part of the HTML spec. Need to
decide how to effectively do that - pull requests etc.
... Think we should co-ordinate with HTML to work out how we do
one set of work.
SM: There's no point in us doing
this twice.
... There are edits waiting to happen, based on the outcome of
our decision.
JB: The problem with working in
the HTML spec is that there was incorrect information getting
baked in.
... These are rasons not to do it in HTML again now.
LQ: Like Shane, have stopped editing.
SM: Judy do you think the text should be removed from the spec?
<Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to ask judy if she proposes that it be removed from html 5.1
JB: It was proposed previously, but later folded back in.
SM: I don't think there are any normative bits in that part of the spec.
SF: The advice in the spec is informative, and also in the alt doc.
<Zakim> Judy, you wanted to respond to Shane
SF: Normative content has been in the spec all along.
<SteveF> -1 to removing from html spec
CMN: My conclusion is that we're not clear on what to do. Will wait for outcome of CFC, but encourage Shane and Liam to continue editing.
<Judy> +1 to what Charles is sahying on going ahead to edit!
CMN: Date picker and transcript items can be discussed on the email list.
<chaals> [Thanks Léonie for scribing]
<chaals> [Adjourned]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.140 of Date: 2014-11-06 18:16:30 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/was strongly opposed of moving /was strongly opposed to moving / Succeeded: s/time to review/time to review the very latest/ Succeeded: s/team content/team contact/ Succeeded: s/THML/HTML/ Found ScribeNick: LJWatson Inferring Scribes: LJWatson Default Present: JF, LJWatson, Joanmarie_Diggs, Plh, Liam, janina, [IPcaller], IanP, Judy, ShaneM, Rich_Schwerdtfeger, steveF, Charles, [ApTest] Present: Chaals Charles IanP JF Janina Joanie Joanmarie_Diggs JohnF Judy LJWatson Liam Léonie PLH Plh RichS Rich_Schwerdtfeger ShaneM SteveF [ApTest] [IPcaller] janina steveF Found Date: 26 Feb 2015 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2015/02/26-html-a11y-minutes.html People with action items: chaals WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]