See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 27 January 2014
<liza> Yes
<mgylling> karen, ok to scribe?
<tmichel> wHO IS 1.646.336.aabb ,
yes
<tmichel> IS ??P31 JeanKaplansky OR Karen_Myers ,
Markus: Let's get going
Julie: I'm at a 646 number
Markus: Thierry, if you can
assign that to Julie
... Welcome everyone
... We have Karen scribing today
<scribe> Scribe: Karen
UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: and registering
regrets
... Short agenda for today
... As you know, we are running these focused themes with the
task forces
... We don't have a new task force today because we have an
urgent matter to cover annotations
... But on this call we'll decide what task force to review
next week
... We have one person who has not yet made it to our
calls
... Rich, can you say a few words?
Rich: I am CTO for Accessibility for IBM software
<Bill_Kasdorf> has Julie from BISG been introduced?
Rich: and chair the ARIA standards effort
Markus: Last week's minutes are
published
... any objections to accepting them?
Markus: there is work underway to
propose the formation of a working track working group
... of the open annotations community group
... we are thinking to fast track the requirements so they can
be used and referenced by the WG
... anything else, Rob, in terms of context?
Rob: in order to ensure all the
requirements of the IG are met
... in the WG process
... would be great to have the usec cases if not entirely
finished, at least be a lot more formalized than they are
now
Markus: To do this, the first
thing to keep in mind
... is that this is the process all the task forces will go
through
... Use of the wiki is in the initial stage of the Task Force
work
... we expect taht they will formalize in Note documents
... It looks like annotations task force will take the next
steps in this sequence first
... but we want to clarify with the sequence first
... And hope Karen can help us
... basically I think there is the following steps
... let me throw them out here
... First is that we as an IG go over the wiki and fill in any
blanks or missing areas that we can find
... Second step is that the task force produces a first version
of the Note document
... and we abandon the wiki at that stage
... and likely use ReSpec JS to produce a Note
... at that point, it is the IG's first public draft
... and we accept comments both internally with W3C and on the
mailing list within a period of time
... let's say it's one month
... And once the comment period is done and edits are done, we
are ready to publish the Note
... i don't think it's much more complex than that
<azaroth> \me http://www.w3.org/respec/
Markus: Notes are not too high ranking in w3C space
Karen: we can review process document...just the time frame may need checking
Markus: We need to be
done...
... does this sound feasible?
Rob: yes, that sounds good
... in terms of timing, we need to have something charterwise
that can be discussed by 1 April
... meaning that the Note should be in a good state
... according to the IG
... about one month or three weeks before the annotations
... would go three weeks to write the note
Markus: are you ok with producing
a version of the Note now
... in a week or so?
Rob: I can try for within a week
Markus: we spend time today
looking at the wiki about we have and don't
... then have a one-week window for the IG to look at it
further
... and then following week produce first draft version of the
Note
Rob: my only concern with
that
... is having @ in the Note referring to use cases that don't
get agreed upon in the IG
... if Note lists all the use cases, that is easy
<tmichel> first draft version of the Note I guess is an editor's document ?
Rob: but if it's tracking down more references, that could be complicated
Markus: if everything goes well
by next Monday, we should have IG's blessing for all or a
subset?
... And that is your greenlight to produce a Note
Rob: if we can do it in that timeframe, that would be fantastic
Markus: yes, it might take
longer, but we have been through it before
... I would be surprised to see a storm of complaints
Thierry: the first document we
will produce is a first draft Editor's document
... and once IG is ok, we'll move it to a w3C Note
... and sooner or later we can republish that Note when we want
to add changes there
Markus: right
s/Suzanne
Suzanne: there are accessibility implications for annotations
<Suzanne> http://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/Mark_Highlighting
Suzanne: It would be good if
Gerardo, others in accessibility task force had time to look
over the annotations carefully
... with view about making annotations themselves
accessible
... We are at a conference this week and would need more days
next week
Markus: yes, maybe we should...
<mgylling> http://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/UseCase_Directory#Social_Reading_and_Annotations
Markus: ask people to just
navigate to this URL
... you jumped straight into what we have now
... What you referenced, Suzanne is the last use case
<gcapiel> I agree. Thanks Suzzane
Markus: Looking at the list, Rob,
to give use bearing
... from CG perspective, how complete is this
... on a scale from one to 100
Rob: 95
... it pretty much covers what the CG has discussed
... one or two things which are part of the current
specification
... that there were use cases for but they were very
specific
... cannot think of anything that made them useful in
publishing domain
... A few things not in CG such as packages use cases
... and recording the state of user manipulated resources is
not covered
... that is far too complicated to come out
Markus: yes, I see a bunch that
comes from discussions we have had here and within the EPUB
WG
... the packaging of annotations as well as under other
<lizadaly> argh
Markus: specififying the target audience stem from EPUB work
Rob: huge jump slightly
... Suzanne, did you expect that accessibility of annotations
is an accessibility use case, an annotations use case, or
both
Suzanne: I worry...most important
thing
... is that actual interface be accessible
... if we keep it only in accessibility it will be in a second
releasea
... I would like to see it in the annotations work if
possible
Gerardo: I totally agree
... accessibility was not thought through in first pass with
[example Hypothes.is]
... description, post production
Markus: we got that you agree
with Suzanne
... So is that an easy item for you to carry in here, Rob?
Rob: I am not at all versed in
accessibility concerns, but happy to work with people who
are
... I could not draft a first version of that requirement
Markus: right
... if we look at your collection right now, it is not talking
about interface properties
... talking about the data itself, not the interface
Rob: one does touch on interface
<gcapiel> Sorry, on train. I was just saying that annotations are very applicable for post-production image description and description of other visual elements. Also, it seems that accessibility has been an afterthought with existing solutions.
Rob: maintaining interface
style
... draw in white vs black
... place a pop-up at this point so as not to cover up useful
text
... those are related to the user experience, if not related to
the user interface
Suzanne: I would suggest that the
accessibility task force read through and add small
comments
... and then we add one additional use case which describes the
recommended functionality
... or requirements
... we have an initial draft and could vet that and move over
to annotations area
Markus: in terms of the
accessibility task force review, what date can we set for
you?
... Any chance you can do this by next Monday, or is that
overly optimistic?
Gerardo: I can work on the plane
Rich: I would like to look at it,
but have people in Austin this week
... so could not get to it until the weekend or early next
week
Suzanne: I would have trouble getting to it by the 3rd; maybe the 5th
Markus: ok, that sounds good
<scribe> ACTION: Suzanne, Gerardo and Rich to complete accessibility review by 4 February [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/01/27-dpub-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Error finding 'Suzanne,'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/track/users>.
<gcapiel> There's some discussion of this topic during an Accessibility Sprint which included Hypothes.is who has been involved in the annotations work http://kefletcher.blogspot.com/2013/06/born-digital-born-accessible-sprint.html?m=1
Bill: I put that on when Suzanne
first commented
... there are also metadata implications for the annotations
spec
... but our situation is the opposite of accessibility
... metadata should take into account the finished state
... rather than delay things
... metadata responds to use cases for implications
Rob: What do people think about scope of metadata?
Bill: you are involved intimately in both
Rob: Should metadata task force discuss annotations for metadata as well as publications, or both?
Markus: Bill?
Bill: waiting for others to
respond
... I think there will be blurred lines there
... publications...whether regarding annotations or basic
publication
... we can responsibly address them after the annotation issues
are clarified
... we would not be driving annotations use cases, but some use
cases could arise
Markus: ok, good
... in terms of timing
... by 5th the accessibility review is completed
... so we can target February 10
... which would be our first opportunity for IG blessing to
have first draft for review
... and review is not only for accessibility folks
... please feel free to provide your input in the next
week
... Rob, anything you want to alert the IG on when we read
through this?
... weak areas, potential blind spots that you have been
thinkign about?
Rob: I don't think so
... the later use cases are weaker than the earlier ones just
due to use case fatigue
... any comments and suggestions are very welcome
Markus: the queue is empty
... if there are not more comments on annotations, we are ready
to move onto the next agenda item
... I'm glad we have Gerardo and Suzanne here
... as the next item relates to accessibility
... and we have Rich here as well
... Rich, perhaps you can summarize
Rich: one of things we agreed to
do is to create some modules off of ARIA to apply additional
semantics to assistive technologies through browsers
... make structural semantics available through ARIA
... we would need to have some people from this IG part of that
effort
... and coordinate with main WG and collaborate
... We would start with structural semantics
... we don't want to slow down the work others are doing
... Would be great if someone could volunteer to do the
editing
... does that summarzie?
Markus: yes; what timeline?
Rich: Depends how fast we move
and get things implemented
... you have done most of work, you have defined
semantics
... main thing is to get out to browsers
... biggest thing is getting to CR
... we're looking for 1.1 by end of next eyar
... I don't know if we can do it in that time frame, but I'm
willing to work with people to get that to happen
... I work with many assistive technology vendors
Gerardo: Some of this also came
out
... from @
... when we had discussion with SVG WG
... graphs in SVG
... need for additional ARIA roles came up
... Rich and Doug Schepers know about it
... We are planning a call at EDUPUB2
Rich: We also agreed to form a
module for graphics
... as long as that's not an issue
Gerardo: perfect
Markus: We have @ from ETS
... is that possible for 1.1?
@: we are full up
scribe: I would have to take that
back to the working group
... were you thinking TI?
Markus: Mark Hakenen and you, Laura have been thinking
Laura: Mark has been working with
you
... and will be talking about ARIA at EDUPUB
Markus: right
Laura: I don't know how far he has gotten with that
<gcapiel> To add to minutes, I'm referring to using ARIA roles to aid SVG sonification
Laura: or how ready he would be
Markus: we hope to clarify parts
of that at EDUPUB2
... if I understand there are two modules agreed
... one for graphics and one for basic ebooks semantics
... your call for participation and editor is for both?
... or epub ones?
Rich: I want to meet with Doug
and Gerardo at EDUPUB 2
... I'm chairing accessibility workshop
Markus: If anyone wants to sign up for this module, make yourself heard
<Suzanne> I will volunteer to participate
Markus: I plan to join but would
love to have more people showing up
... Rich, anything else from TF meeting last week?
Rich: we're looking at test cases and the 2.0 timeline as well
Markus: seeing that we have a
little extra time
... One of things that's going on, is that IDPF and epub is
looking for a more native solution to express structural
semantics
... as most of you know, we use the epub colon type
attributes
... we are exploring options to move away from that, not
name-space based, but something more native based to browser
stack
... a couple solutions
... have been suggestions
... one from Robin Berjon, editor of HTML5
[@@]
scribe: another option is to make
the rule attributes less @ centric and more generic
... Is that right Rich?
Rich: yes, as long as it does not
break accessibility
... services...then I don't see an issue
Markus: this means there are two
avenues to look into
... this IG is only partially involved here
... serving as a bridge to these discussions
... but sounds more like a discussion that needs to happen with
HTML5 folks and the TF
... any more questions regarding PF and roles?
... great
... we'll see, Rich, how it goes with the call for
participation
... we'll try perhaps to gather people to sign up for next
week's call
... with a week to think about this
Rich: that's perfect [timeline]
Markus: final agenda item is the
focus task force for next meeting
... I wrote to two of them
... I see some in a pretty early state
... such as metadata
... Bill, Brady, what do you think?
Bill: I would be happy to next
week focus on metadata if group wants to do that
... Ivan will be on call next week; hope Madi would be as
well
... It did just get started up
... if we devote next week's meeting, we should avoid getting
into specifics, and focus on scope
... it's easy to get into the weeds in the metadata
discussions
... what became immediately clear on wiki discussions
... is the importance of emphasizing the what rather than the
how
... the mechanisms and solutions
... lots of details about metadata vocabularies
Brady: on the pagination
side
... I don't remember agreeing to head this group
... I may have been nominated for it
... I am editing the wiki with behavioral adaptations
... but don't recall heading that group
Markus: that is right
... you took action to add DOM pagination
... I am to blame for elevating you to task force lead
<brady_duga> Sorry, deadzone
<brady_duga> I dropped
Markus: this is an important
area
... even if we change the task force lead to someone else, we
still need to get going
Bill: I am happy to have call
focus on metadata
... we have a framework for discussion on the wiki
... but if next week is better used for @ I am happy to
defer
Markus: I think we are good to go
with metadata next week
... and Brady and I can sort things out on pagination
Brady: I will be adding some
stuff to the wiki
... will be a strength to that section and I'll participate in
that group
... On a side note
... adding something to wiki, we don't have reading system
authors there
Markus: that is still
open-ended
... if you find yourself in corner, feel free to add it
Brady: just add it and it appears?
Markus: yes
... I think we are settled and done for the day?
... Any other business?
... super
... please recall your review of the annotations collections
warmly welcome
... Suzanne, Rich and Gerardo will do a dedicated review from
an accessibility perspective
Rich: Are there any other aspects
of annotation being included?
... I saw a mark
... are you referencing mark element in HTML5?
Markus: Maybe you are not aware
of the open annotation CG
... you mentioned at the PF call
<azaroth> http://www.w3.org/community/openannotation/
<mgylling> http://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/UseCase_Directory#Social_Reading_and_Annotations
Markus: Rob Sanderson from this
group is co-chair of that
... and is working with W3C staff to propose a rec track
version of open annotations
... and epub also working on integrating
... you may want to read in on that
... good opportunity for an inverted long desk
Rob: if there is anything I can do to help, shoot me an email; happy to do what I can
Rich: ok
Markus: any other
questions?
... thank you for today
... thank you, Karen for scribing
... meeting adjourned
<azaroth> richardschwerdtfeger: (handle)42@gmail.com
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/CTO/CTO for Accessibility/ Succeeded: s/in the IG/of the IG/ Succeeded: s/and the WG/in the WG/ Succeeded: s/Respect and JS/ReSpec JS/ WARNING: Bad s/// command: s/Suzanne Found Scribe: Karen Inferring ScribeNick: karen Default Present: Rich_Schwerdtfeger, +1.609.216.aaaa, lizadaly, mgylling, +1.646.336.aabb, +1.505.665.aacc, +1.609.216.aadd, azaroth, Vlad, duga, Karen_Myers, tmichel, LFowler, JeanKaplansky, Marilyn, gcapiel, dshkolnik, fjh, Suzanne_Taylor, +1.917.447.aaee, Bill_Kasdorf Present: Rich_Schwerdtfeger +1.609.216.aaaa lizadaly mgylling +1.646.336.aabb +1.505.665.aacc +1.609.216.aadd azaroth Vlad duga Karen_Myers tmichel LFowler JeanKaplansky Marilyn gcapiel dshkolnik fjh Suzanne_Taylor +1.917.447.aaee Bill_Kasdorf Frederick_Hirsch Regrets: Dave_Cramer Ivan_Herman Alan_Stearns Liam_Quin Luc_Audrain Phil_Madans Tom_De_Nies Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-digipub-ig/2014Jan/0033.html WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth Found Date: 27 Jan 2014 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2014/01/27-dpub-minutes.html People with action items: gerardo rich suzanne[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]