14:59:37 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #cg
14:59:37 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/04/24-cg-irc
14:59:43 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #cg
14:59:52 <janina> zakim, this will be cg
14:59:52 <Zakim> ok, janina, I see WAI_CG()11:00AM already started
15:00:01 <janina> zakim, call janina
15:00:01 <Zakim> ok, janina; the call is being made
15:00:03 <Zakim> +Janina
15:01:06 <janina> zakim, call janina
15:01:06 <Zakim> ok, janina; the call is being made
15:01:07 <Zakim> +Janina.a
15:01:07 <Zakim> -Janina
15:01:30 <Loretta> Loretta has joined #cg
15:01:53 <kford> zakim, phone code?
15:01:53 <Zakim> I am sorry, kford; I do not know a number for code?
15:02:00 <kford> zakim, code?
15:02:00 <Zakim> the conference code is 92424 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), kford
15:02:03 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:02:10 <Jan> zakim, [IPcaller] is really JR
15:02:10 <Zakim> +JR; got it
15:02:14 <Zakim> +??P4
15:02:30 <Ben> Ben has joined #cg
15:02:54 <janina> zakim, who is on the phone?
15:02:54 <Zakim> On the phone I see [Microsoft], Janina.a, JR, ??P4
15:03:08 <janina> zakim, janina.a is janina
15:03:08 <Zakim> +janina; got it
15:03:17 <MichaelC> MichaelC has joined #cg
15:03:25 <Zakim> +Gregg_Vanderheiden
15:03:44 <Zakim> +??P5
15:03:49 <kford> zakim, microsoft is kford
15:03:49 <Zakim> +kford; got it
15:03:51 <MichaelC> zakim, call cooper-mit
15:03:51 <Zakim> ok, MichaelC; the call is being made
15:03:53 <Zakim> +Cooper
15:03:54 <Ben> zakim, ??P5 is Ben_Caldwell
15:03:54 <Zakim> +Ben_Caldwell; got it
15:04:10 <Zakim> +??P8
15:04:20 <cyns> cyns has joined #cg
15:04:22 <MichaelC> zakim, who's on the phone?
15:04:22 <Zakim> On the phone I see kford, janina, JR, ??P4, Gregg_Vanderheiden, Ben_Caldwell, Cooper, ??P8
15:04:25 <Gez> Gez has joined #cg
15:04:52 <cyns> I'm on skype, can you hear me?
15:04:58 <janina> No
15:05:15 <cyns> i can hear you.  I'll troubleshoot
15:05:20 <MichaelC> zakim, ??P4 is Gez_Lemon
15:05:20 <Zakim> +Gez_Lemon; got it
15:05:22 <Ben> zakim, Ben has Loretta_Guarino_Reid
15:05:22 <Zakim> +Loretta_Guarino_Reid; got it
15:05:26 <MichaelC> zakim, ??P8 is Cynthia_Shelly
15:05:26 <Zakim> +Cynthia_Shelly; got it
15:06:43 <janina> zakim, pick a victim
15:06:43 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Gez_Lemon
15:07:14 <Zakim> -Cynthia_Shelly
15:08:55 <cyns> looks like I have a driver problem on win7.
15:09:44 <cyns> will listen and type
15:10:13 <Gez> JR: What to do about machine generated text
15:10:14 <cyns> code again
15:10:17 <cyns> ?
15:10:34 <Jan> s/JR/JS
15:10:37 <Gez> JR: Try and force non-validity on something other than a missing alt on HTML5
15:10:47 <Loretta> 92424
15:10:58 <janina> q?
15:11:01 <janina> q+
15:11:10 <Zakim> +??P8
15:11:19 <Gez> GV: How can you determine whatever is there - validity is not the same as conformance - how do you get a machine to determine between machine and non-machine generated?
15:11:42 <Loretta> q+
15:11:44 <Gez> JS: No way to decide if alt string is good bad or indifferent
15:11:51 <MichaelC> zakim, ??P8 is Cynthia_Shelly
15:11:51 <Zakim> +Cynthia_Shelly; got it
15:11:51 <cyns> q+
15:12:06 <Gez> JS: Not just case for machine generated - also case for human generated string
15:12:22 <Gez> JS: Regardless of how generated - we don't have a way to enforce quality
15:13:09 <Gez> JS: We can just make stabs at what has happened. A number of proposals, but would just put us in a debating and difficult debating position. Smarter path is to state it is present, but says nothing about quality
15:13:16 <janina> q?
15:13:29 <janina> ack
15:14:01 <Gez> LR: Real issues is what should the code look like if there is nothing provided by a human?
15:14:12 <kford> q+
15:14:47 <Gez> LR: Proposal that text should not be provided when none available - if we agree, it should be stated explicitly
15:14:54 <Loretta> ack j
15:14:56 <cyns> point 1) this is also true for other HTML elements.  there is no way to check that <p> has a topic sentence or is any other way a proper paragraph.  Only a human can do that.  Point 2) There are some situations where a well-designed AT can make a pretty-good guess on what the alt should be.  This is an area that needs research, not a ban
15:14:58 <janina> q?
15:15:09 <Loretta> ack lo
15:15:18 <cyns> can someoen read that?
15:16:02 <Loretta> ack cy
15:16:05 <Jan> LGR: Read cyns
15:16:26 <Gez> KF: The machine case is no different from a human that doesn't care about alt
15:16:52 <Gez> KF: Distinguishing between human and machine is not relevant
15:17:09 <Gez> KF: IN Flickr case - photo 1 and photo 2 is better than nothing
15:17:38 <Gez> JS: I can point you to a website where the alt text is always, "Put your text here"
15:17:56 <kford> ack kford
15:17:57 <Gez> KF: I've seen examples where humans have typed in irrelevant alt text
15:18:03 <Loretta> q+
15:18:15 <janina> q?
15:18:18 <oedipus> oedipus has joined #cg
15:18:23 <Gez> GV: There are examples where machine can do better than human
15:18:23 <MichaelC> q+ to say machine-generated alt can be better than nothing, so I'd like to steer clear of saying you should omit and be invalid; what we need is a machine-determinable way to know it was machine-generated. That method must not overload the alt attribute with special tokens but otherwise I can accept various solutions, we don't need to solve that now IMO.
15:18:41 <oedipus> zakim, code?
15:18:41 <Zakim> the conference code is 92424 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), oedipus
15:18:58 <Loretta> ack l
15:19:08 <janina> q?
15:19:15 <Zakim> +Gregory_Rosmaita
15:19:27 <janina> Glad you're here!
15:19:42 <janina> It was cancelled.
15:19:51 <cyns> q+ to say  that I think it is possible that in some circumstances a well-designed authoring tool could do better than a poorly-trained human. 
15:20:01 <Gez> LGR: Want to avoid situations where alt text is badly generated - but should be encourage people to omit which would be invalid - or encourage communication that there is no alt text provided
15:20:08 <cyns> q?
15:20:14 <Jan> q+
15:20:25 <oedipus> q+ to say role="presentation" says no alternative text provided or needed; role="img" says alternative text MUST be provided
15:20:28 <MichaelC> ack me
15:20:28 <Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say machine-generated alt can be better than nothing, so I'd like to steer clear of saying you should omit and be invalid; what we need is a
15:20:31 <Zakim> ... machine-determinable way to know it was machine-generated. That method must not overload the alt attribute with special tokens but otherwise I can accept various solutions, we
15:20:33 <Zakim> ... don't need to solve that now IMO.
15:22:39 <Gez> GV: Question to Loretta - Are you saying something is put in that is recognisable, or asking if alt needed?
15:22:44 <oedipus> loretta, would a role="missing" - as a generic token - work in this AND other cases?
15:22:48 <Gez> LGR: alt needed, but open to discussion
15:23:19 <Gez> GV: What if you don't have good alt? We just create a standard way of saying, we don't have anything useful
15:23:23 <Loretta> gregory, that is a possibility
15:23:36 <Gez> GV: Something besides just sticking something in to become valid
15:24:41 <Gez> GV: If it looks what we believe is machine, the only thing a validator can do is check if something there - cannot check quality
15:24:49 <oedipus> q?
15:24:58 <cyns> another example:  If there are 50 clickable thumbnail photos, knowing that this link opens photo 5 of 50 makes the UI far more usable than hearing an unnamed link or a long, complex URL of the storage location of the image. In this case, the tool does know the purpose of the image.  The alt text is providing the name of the link.  <a href><img alt="1 of 50"></a> has an MSAA role of "link" and a name of "1 of 50".  This might even be the correct alt text for the thu
15:25:40 <cyns> I think it is possible that in some circumstances a well-designed authoring tool could do better than a poorly-trained human. 
15:25:56 <cyns> thumbnail
15:26:07 <cyns> for the thumbnail, even if a human had provided descriptive alt text for the full-sized photo.  It might even pass WCAG.  Another point: I'm ok with a machine-generated flag, but should be removable when the machine did a good job, perhaps verified by human. And another: role=missing would mess up API mappings, so I don't think it works.  role needs to be "image" or "button" or some such.
15:27:03 <Loretta> acks cyns
15:27:03 <Zakim> cyns, you wanted to say  that I think it is possible that in some circumstances a well-designed authoring tool could do better than a poorly-trained human.
15:27:07 <MichaelC> +1 to cyns
15:27:10 <oedipus> ack jan
15:27:59 <kford> q+
15:28:27 <Gez> JR: Authoring tools should not make repairs unless it can add information that would not be available textually to user agent
15:28:35 <Gez> JR: So not grab filename of image
15:28:49 <Gez> JS: SO we should point to the ATAG guideance?
15:29:01 <oedipus> ack oe
15:29:01 <Zakim> oedipus, you wanted to say role="presentation" says no alternative text provided or needed; role="img" says alternative text MUST be provided
15:29:15 <oedipus> 1. alt is for humans: both on input and output sides - human consumption and human insertion
15:29:15 <oedipus> 2. consider role="missing" - as a generic token - in this AND other cases
15:29:15 <oedipus> 3. OR: @alt for human input/output ONLY; @role for classification; @type for machine insertion and error flagging (type="missing" or type="invalid")
15:31:06 <janina> q?
15:31:07 <Gez> GV: Question to Gregory - what would be valid what you said? Valid for type="missing"?
15:31:38 <Gez> GV: Only thing in image is role="missing" would that be valid?
15:31:38 <cyns> q+ to say where do you draw the human vs. auto line, though?  Is an image button on a template machine generated when the template is used on a page?
15:31:46 <Gez> GR: Valid, not accessible
15:31:49 <oedipus> valid, but inaccesible
15:32:12 <Gez> GV: That would satisfy HTML WG - it would then be up to WCAG not HTML5's concern
15:32:17 <oedipus> valid, but inaccesible if type="missing" or type="incomplete" or type="invalid"
15:32:31 <Gez> GV: So long as it's valid to say missing, we should write that down as an option
15:33:09 <Jan> q+
15:33:16 <Loretta> ack gre
15:33:22 <oedipus> if role="img" (explicitly or explicitly) WITHOUT @alt, then type="missing" or type="incomplete"
15:33:45 <Jan> to ask what is labelled with type=missing...the whole image? How does the UA know it refers to the alt attribute not something else?
15:33:56 <oedipus> type="machinegenerated" type="mg" type="auto"
15:34:06 <Gez> GV: Marking something as machine generated allows you to check. Maybe a second proposal is to have something called machine generated as a type, and you allow the machine to put in something alt.
15:34:31 <Gez> JS: Some way of flagging alt generated, so long as not part of alt string
15:34:31 <oedipus> q?
15:34:36 <janina> q?
15:34:49 <Gez> GV: type="machine_generated" allows machine to put things in
15:35:21 <oedipus> the problem is that even if human or machine generated alt text needs a human evaluation to ascertain if valid/accessible
15:35:35 <Gez> GV: Over time, we may be able to do quality generated alt
15:35:57 <Gez> GV: alt for human consumption, but couldn't suggest machines could never do good
15:36:04 <cyns> +1 GV
15:36:06 <Gez> GV: They could do a better job than humans in the future
15:36:08 <oedipus> if one can keyboard navigate to all images that need to be converted (problem with webvisum's CAPTCHA buster - have to be able to put focus on CAPTCHA)
15:36:09 <janina> q?
15:36:22 <Jan> ack kford
15:36:41 <Gez> KF: Disagree that alt is strictly for human - other ways alt text can be there that are valid or could become valid
15:37:27 <Gez> KF: Machine generated flag that could be changed to human - concern is that a level of complexity has been introduced that makes people thing it's more complicated than it is or should be
15:37:54 <Gez> KF: Also concerned abnout benefit of identifying where alt text came from
15:38:12 <oedipus> q+ to say the subtly is that even if source of the alt text is human OR machine, alt text still needs human evaluation to ascertain if valid, pertinent, correct, accessible, understandable-in-isolation
15:38:39 <Gez> KF: I have an application that allows me to create a photo album. I have an application on the web that allows me to extract that data as meta data. That would be machine generated
15:38:50 <Gez> GR: It's not machine generated, as it originated from a human
15:38:59 <Gez> KF: I disagree - how do you determine?
15:39:03 <oedipus> WCAG should champion embedding meta-data (terse and long descriptors) in image file formats
15:39:11 <cyns> I can go either way on the machine-generated flag.  However, I really worry about where to draw the line.  If you have a back-end system that's generating a page, it might very well know exactly what the purpose of each image is.  
15:39:26 <cyns> I'd like to see authoring tools track this, but I don't think it needs to be in the markup.
15:39:31 <cyns> perhaps ATAG AA?
15:40:10 <cyns> It was discussed on the HTML list, but i don't think there was consensus
15:40:37 <cyns> yes
15:40:39 <kford> q+
15:40:46 <janina> q?
15:40:48 <Loretta> acks cyns
15:40:48 <oedipus> ack cyns
15:40:49 <Zakim> cyns, you wanted to say where do you draw the human vs. auto line, though?  Is an image button on a template machine generated when the template is used on a page?
15:40:57 <oedipus> ack jan
15:41:01 <Loretta> ack jan
15:41:10 <Gez> JR: What does type="missing" on the image refer to?
15:41:18 <Gez> GR: Whatever is attached
15:41:27 <Gez> JR: What if it was source? It's ambiguous
15:41:50 <Gez> GR: The term we used - don't mind what it is, but the type flag should be thrown when alt is missing
15:41:58 <oedipus> type="needsalt"
15:42:04 <oedipus> type="needssrc"
15:42:08 <Loretta> is "type" already used in HTML5/ARIA?
15:43:11 <Gez> JR: I understand. I see some usefulness in marking something like this. We could have good automatically generated alt text in situations that are highly understood by the tool. Such as when it asks for a photo of owner
15:43:15 <oedipus> q?
15:43:28 <Ben> q+ to say, "1) What is advantage to user from a user experience perspective of missing flag? 2) Is it reasonable to expect that authors would use it?"
15:43:31 <oedipus> ack gregg
15:44:25 <Gez> GV: The only time you would use type="machine" would be something a human wouldn't need to do
15:44:59 <Gez> GV: Adds to complexity, but solves a problem that has taken thousandss of hours that no one has solved
15:45:17 <Gez> GV: A little bit of complexity, but just for machines that solves this problem
15:45:48 <oedipus> type="noalt" and type="nosrc"
15:45:58 <Gez> GV: type="missing" - change to missingalt, but purpose is for when machine couldn't make a meaningful guess
15:46:29 <Gez> GV: The type suggestions add complexity only for machines, and only for the purpose of allowing something to be valid, but not accessible
15:46:32 <oedipus> ack oed
15:46:32 <Zakim> oedipus, you wanted to say the subtly is that even if source of the alt text is human OR machine, alt text still needs human evaluation to ascertain if valid, pertinent, correct,
15:46:35 <Zakim> ... accessible, understandable-in-isolation
15:48:33 <Gez> KF: There was talk about setting type="machine" that would trigger a human to check they were valid, and then update them or say they were okay- which would later be changed to human. How do you determine they're okay?
15:49:03 <Gez> GR: This is a case where are meets science. We're never going to get a scientific explanation about what constitutes good alt text
15:49:23 <Gez> KF: Not disagreeing - but at some point a human needs to look
15:49:34 <cyns> q+ to say why does this have to be in the markup?  Why can't the authoring tool track it internally?  It sounds like workflow to me, not UI
15:49:40 <oedipus> i'm not sure how type="machine" got into my proposal - it wasn't in my 3 points
15:49:46 <Gez> KF: I don't strongly oppose another group wanting to do this, but I'm opposed to this being mandated for accessibility
15:49:47 <oedipus> 1. alt is for humans: both on input and output sides - human consumption and human insertion
15:49:47 <oedipus> 2. consider role="missing" - as a generic token - in this AND other cases
15:49:47 <oedipus> 3. OR: @alt for human input/output ONLY; @role for classification; @type for machine insertion and error flagging (type="missing" or type="invalid")
15:50:03 <Gez> JR: Clarifying - what happens when a human tweaks it? Does it get updated
15:50:20 <cyns> +1 kelly
15:50:23 <oedipus> s/JR: Clarifying/JS: Clarifying
15:50:28 <Gez> KF If the HTML5 WG want to propose that - fine - I'm against us forcing this on them. Too much complexity for not enough benefit
15:50:41 <Ben> ack Ben
15:50:41 <Zakim> Ben, you wanted to say, "1) What is advantage to user from a user experience perspective of missing flag? 2) Is it reasonable to expect that authors would use it?"
15:50:50 <kford> ack kford
15:51:14 <oedipus> machine generated flag is a canard - it's not my idea nor part of my proposal
15:51:28 <Zakim> -Gregg_Vanderheiden
15:51:51 <janina> q?
15:52:18 <Ben> q+ Gregg
15:52:29 <Gez> GR: It's not about machine generated flags. A missing flag is something AT could use
15:53:04 <Gez> GR: A user may want to specify how they hear alt - no alt, give me title, no title give me something else
15:53:14 <cyns> I just don't agree that machine-generated alt is never good.  whether it has been checked by a human is a workflow issue.  
15:53:21 <cyns> not a UI issue.  
15:53:37 <oedipus> i'm not asserting it is good or bad, it still needs to be reviewed
15:53:46 <Loretta> acks cyn
15:53:46 <Zakim> cyns, you wanted to say why does this have to be in the markup?  Why can't the authoring tool track it internally?  It sounds like workflow to me, not UI
15:53:53 <Laura> Laura has joined #cg
15:53:53 <oedipus> ack gregg
15:54:22 <janina> q?
15:54:29 <oedipus> gives users ability to use tools like GreaseMonkey and AccessMonkey 
15:54:43 <Gez> GV: What good is it to say flagging it as machine? It helps maintain pages, helps checking pages, gives users ability to decide how they receive information
15:54:51 <janina> q?
15:55:10 <oedipus> amen, gregg
15:55:30 <oedipus> note: queue is closed
15:55:44 <janina> proposal: We do not oppose so kind of flag that indicates alternative text was machine generated, as long as this flag is not included in the alternative text string itself.
15:55:54 <cyns> q+ to say I agree with Ben.  I think a lot of site owners would consider this to be putting a big "sue me" sign on their backs.
15:56:01 <Laura> got the time confused
15:56:02 <Gez> GV: What we have is a nice compromise that doesn't force them to take alt off required, but also addresses human generated alt
15:56:12 <Laura> what is the phone code?
15:56:19 <oedipus> zakim, code?
15:56:19 <Zakim> the conference code is 92424 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), oedipus
15:56:20 <cyns> I agree with Ben.  I think a lot of site owners would consider this to be putting a big "sue me" sign on their backs.
15:56:35 <Loretta> q+
15:56:38 <Ben> q+
15:56:42 <Loretta> ack cyns
15:56:42 <Zakim> cyns, you wanted to say I agree with Ben.  I think a lot of site owners would consider this to be putting a big "sue me" sign on their backs.
15:56:42 <oedipus> ack cyns
15:56:52 <janina> q?
15:56:58 <Loretta> ack l
15:57:03 <Gez> LG: If they're worried about being sued - provide adequate alt text
15:57:03 <Loretta> ack be
15:57:10 <janina> q?
15:57:16 <Zakim> + +1.218.349.aaaa - is perhaps Laura
15:57:26 <cyns> Yes, this is just like noalt in that respect.  I dont' think many will use it.
15:57:40 <oedipus> zakim, +1.218.349.aaaa is Laura_Carlson
15:57:40 <Zakim> sorry, oedipus, I do not recognize a party named '+1.218.349.aaaa'
15:57:43 <Gez> JS: Straw poll
15:57:47 <oedipus> zakim, [+1.218.349.aaaa] is Laura_Carlson
15:57:47 <Zakim> sorry, oedipus, I do not recognize a party named '[+1.218.349.aaaa]'
15:57:52 <oedipus> zakim, aaaa is Laura_Carlson
15:57:52 <Zakim> sorry, oedipus, I do not recognize a party named 'aaaa'
15:58:05 <cyns> I don't see it in IRC
15:58:23 <oedipus> present- +1.218.349.aaaa
15:58:30 <oedipus> present+ Laura_Carlson
15:58:31 <Jan> proposal: We do not oppose some kind of flag that indicates alternative text was machine generated, as long as this flag is not included in the alternative text string itself.
15:58:55 <oedipus> can live with - still think machine-generation is a canard, though
15:59:03 <cyns> can live with.
15:59:20 <oedipus> VERY wise phrasing, janina - 
15:59:23 <Loretta> can we provide this flag  with no text alt?
15:59:36 <cyns> don't understand loretta's question?
15:59:40 <oedipus> only if role="presentation"
15:59:49 <Loretta> would providing the flag make the img valid?
15:59:51 <Jan> q+
15:59:55 <oedipus> er, i mean, role="img"
16:00:26 <oedipus> collecting low hanging fruit
16:00:46 <cyns> aren't those the same?  
16:00:46 <Gez> LG: Thought proposal about missing was better than type="missing". Does this replace that?
16:00:49 <oedipus> general statement of principle
16:00:50 <Ben> q+ Gregg
16:00:52 <Gez> JS: No
16:00:58 <janina> q?
16:01:03 <oedipus> ack Jan
16:01:21 <cyns> q+ to say I thought this served the same purpose as type=missing.  If not, I don't understand type=missing.
16:01:50 <Gez> JR: Idea is to get something that will validate that says something truthful about how much you can trust the alt
16:01:56 <Gez> JS: Agreed
16:01:59 <oedipus> @alt for human input/output ONLY; @role for classification; @type for machine insertion and error flagging (type="missing" or type="noalt" type="nosrc")
16:02:17 <Gez> JS: Doesn't indicate it was provided in an authoring environment
16:02:21 <janina> q?
16:02:25 <cyns> that was nicely put, Jan.  Perhaps we could add that to the proposal to help explain our reasoning?
16:02:32 <oedipus> ack gregg
16:02:54 <Gez> GV: Use of this flag is when not presentational
16:02:57 <Gez> GR: Yes, changed
16:03:10 <Gez> GV: We need these things together, as separately they don't make sense
16:03:12 <oedipus> GJR: meant role="img" -- long week
16:03:48 <janina> q?
16:04:02 <cyns> point 1) @role needs to be image, unless it's being used as a button or some such.  Otherwise, you mess up API mappings by overloading role.
16:04:13 <cyns> point 2) I'm really confused about what Greggory is proposing
16:04:32 <cyns> can you put in some markup examples?
16:04:48 <janina> q?
16:04:51 <cyns> that was nicely put, Jan.  Perhaps we could add that to the proposal to help explain our reasoning?
16:04:53 <oedipus> cyns, will take some time
16:05:08 <Loretta> acks cyns
16:05:08 <Zakim> cyns, you wanted to say I thought this served the same purpose as type=missing.  If not, I don't understand type=missing.
16:05:35 <cyns> I'm done talking, but still confused <grin/>
16:05:53 <oedipus> cyns, that's because you're in magical madrid
16:06:09 <MichaelC> MichaelC has joined #cg
16:06:20 <cyns> Jan's comments about saying something truthful about alt quality
16:06:21 <janina> q?
16:06:25 <Ben> q+ Gregg, to say, "In order to address both the validity and human generation concerns, we do not oppose the creation of a 'machine generated' and a 'missing' flag and that either one of those could be used to make an image valid without any human-generated text alternatives."
16:06:52 <Ben> ack Gregg
16:06:52 <Zakim> Gregg, you wanted to say, "In order to address both the validity and human generation concerns, we do not oppose the creation of a 'machine generated' and a 'missing' flag and that
16:06:55 <Zakim> ... either one of those could be used to make an image valid without any human-generated text alternatives."
16:07:39 <cyns> liked the first one better.  this is too specific in the names of the flags.
16:08:05 <cyns> why not keep it simple?
16:08:58 <cyns> I could live with and/or, but am not convinced we need both
16:09:17 <Ben> scribe: Ben
16:09:17 <Zakim> -Gez_Lemon
16:10:05 <Loretta> q+
16:10:11 <oedipus> 1. img has implicit role="img" UNLESS author changes to role="presentation"
16:10:11 <oedipus> 2. img with no alt text is an implicit (or explicit, if added by authoring tool) type="noalt" - this is valid HTML5, but inaccessible web content
16:10:11 <oedipus> <img src="image01.png" type="noalt"> (implicit role="img")
16:10:11 <oedipus> <img src="image01.png" alt="Cynthia Shelly"> (implicit role="img")
16:10:11 <oedipus> <img src="expand-collapse.png" role="presentation">
16:10:13 <oedipus> <img src="image33.png" role="img" type="noalt">
16:10:15 <oedipus> <img role="img" alt="The Grand Canyon at sunset." type="nosrc">
16:10:25 <Ben> JS: wonder if what we're really looking at is 2 sets of proposals, the second is having some kind of indicator that alt needs to be present and was not provided
16:10:33 <oedipus> cyns, do those help?
16:11:15 <janina> q?
16:11:56 <Ben> GV: point was that we should capture both ideas. not sure we're in a position to insist on anyting, but sending this we're simply asking them to do it this way. not quite sure how they would differ. in each case we're politely suggesting.
16:11:58 <oedipus> morrass is the correct term
16:12:40 <janina> q?
16:12:46 <janina> ack lor
16:12:54 <cyns> oedipus, how does an implicit noalt do anything that missing alt attribute doesn't?  if noalt is implicit, then doesn't that make img with a missign alt valid?
16:12:58 <oedipus> i can support that
16:13:07 <Ben> LGR: this is our suggestion for how to create valid code in this situation
16:13:34 <Loretta> cynthia, what implicit noalt?
16:13:46 <Ben> GV: Not sure anybody would use the missing. I think authors may label as machine generated, but missing woudl be useful if you're trying to flag things to go back and clean up later.
16:13:54 <oedipus> cyns, it prevents authors or authoring tools or content management tools from stuffing placeholder or meaningless text as an alt value
16:13:56 <janina> q?
16:14:17 <cyns> So, did I understant Loretta correctly?  We prefer for alt to be a required attribute of img, but don't oppose a noalt flag as long as it is not part of the alt string.  Is that right?
16:14:19 <Loretta> oh, you meant explicit.
16:14:56 <Ben> 01In order to address both the validity and human generation concerns, we do not oppose the creation of a 'machine generated' and a 'missing' flag where either one of these could be used to make an image valid without any human-generated text alternatives.
16:15:08 <Loretta> alt or labelledby or legend, but yes
16:16:00 <oedipus> should that be part 1 of a 2 part statement - here is principle and limits of acceptable advice, here is our recommended declarative markup approach
16:16:53 <Ben> 01In order to address both the validity and human generation concerns, we do not oppose the creation of a 'machine generated' and a 'missing' flag where either one of these could be used to make an image valid without any human-generated text alternatives.as long as this flag is not included in the alternative text string itself.
16:18:04 <cyns> I like Loretta's idea.  State that we prefer that alt be a required attribute of img and area.  But, we don't oppose a mechanism that allows several alternatives (alt, role=presenentation, aria-labeledby) or noalt.
16:18:25 <oedipus> the subtly we have to convey is that even if the source of the alt text is human OR machine, alt text still needs human evaluation to ensure it is: valid, pertinent, correct, unique or identical, accessible, understandable-in-isolation
16:18:39 <Ben> 01In order to address both the validity and human generation concerns, we do not oppose the creation of a 'machine generated' and a 'missing' attribute where either one of these could be used to make an image valid without any human-generated text alternatives (as long as this marker is not included in the alternative text string itself).
16:18:45 <oedipus> it is as much an art as a science
16:18:49 <Loretta> except that I don't prefer that alt be require!
16:19:01 <cyns> oh, I thought you did.  I do :-)
16:19:13 <cyns> oops, sorry about the smiley
16:19:14 <janina> q?
16:19:40 <oedipus> type="auto"
16:19:54 <Loretta> I don't want to be required to provide alt if there is already a perfectly good label available.
16:20:59 <cyns> ok, that's fair.  I guess the part I'm not sure about is just the noalt.
16:21:12 <oedipus> agree with kelly - keep text, remove parentheses
16:21:51 <oedipus> Note: This marker MUST NOT be included in the alternative text string itself.
16:21:52 <cyns> not includign it in the @alt attribute string is a very important part of what we're saying.
16:22:09 <cyns> +1 greggory
16:22:10 <kford> The first sentence sounded awkward to me.  I've lost the text from my irc window.
16:22:40 <oedipus> Note: Such a marker is NOT be included in the alternative text string itself.
16:22:54 <Ben> 01In order to address both the validity and human generation concerns, we do not oppose the creation of an 'autogenerated' and a 'missing' attribute where either one of these could be used to make an image that does not have any human-generated text alternatives valid. (Note: it is important that this marker is not included in the alternative text string itself.)
16:23:06 <janina> q?
16:23:17 <oedipus> Note: Such a marker is NOT to be included in the alternative text string itself.
16:23:36 <oedipus> GJR prefers more assertive phrase at end, because that is the meat of the matter
16:25:08 <janina> q?
16:26:06 <Ben> 01In order to address both the validity and human generation concerns, we do not oppose the creation of 'autogenerated' and 'missing' attributes where either one of these could be used to make an image that does not have any human-generated text alternatives valid. (Note: It is important that this marker is not included in the alternative text string itself.)
16:26:12 <Ben> zakim, who is on the phone?
16:26:12 <Zakim> On the phone I see kford, janina, JR, Ben_Caldwell, Cooper, Cynthia_Shelly, Gregory_Rosmaita, Laura
16:26:14 <Zakim> Ben_Caldwell has Loretta_Guarino_Reid
16:26:27 <cyns> reading, one sec
16:26:37 <janina> +1
16:26:51 <oedipus> (lukewarm) plus one
16:26:52 <Jan> +1
16:26:57 <cyns> can live with
16:27:05 <kford> +1 to proposal.
16:27:28 <Laura> cold plus one
16:27:32 <Ben> RESOLUTION: Add the following to the proposal, "01In order to address both the validity and human generation concerns, we do not oppose the creation of 'autogenerated' and 'missing' attributes where either one of these could be used to make an image that does not have any human-generated text alternatives valid. (Note: It is important that this marker is not included in the alternative text string itself.)"
16:27:40 <oedipus> rrsagent, make minutes
16:27:40 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/04/24-cg-minutes.html oedipus
16:28:13 <janina> q?
16:28:43 <oedipus> logistical question: should these minutes be public or member?
16:29:17 <Ben> ACTION: Gregory to draft "second paragraph" for above.
16:29:17 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Gregory
16:29:29 <oedipus> rrsagent, make minutes public
16:29:29 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'make minutes public', oedipus.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
16:29:32 <oedipus> rrsagent, make log public
16:30:41 <oedipus> meeting: Special WAI/PF Caucus on @alt in HTML5
16:30:43 <oedipus> chair: janina
16:30:52 <oedipus> scribe: Gez_Lemon, Ben_Caldwell
16:30:56 <oedipus> rrsagent, make log public
16:31:01 <oedipus> rrsagent, make minutes
16:31:01 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/04/24-cg-minutes.html oedipus
16:31:56 <oedipus> regrets+ Joshue_O_Connor
16:32:09 <Ben> Topic: Next meeting?
16:32:24 <Ben> JS: Proposes next Friday, 1pm Zulu
16:33:06 <oedipus> i/JS: What to do/ScribeNick: Gez
16:33:09 <oedipus> rrsagent, make minutes
16:33:09 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/04/24-cg-minutes.html oedipus
16:33:29 <Zakim> -Cynthia_Shelly
16:33:33 <Zakim> -kford
16:33:34 <Zakim> -Gregory_Rosmaita
16:33:36 <Zakim> -Ben_Caldwell
16:33:40 <Zakim> -JR
16:33:49 <oedipus> zakim, who is here?
16:33:49 <Zakim> On the phone I see janina, Cooper, Laura
16:33:50 <janina> Ben, can you wrap the minutes?
16:33:50 <Zakim> On IRC I see MichaelC, Laura, oedipus, Ben, Loretta, Zakim, RRSAgent, janina, trackbot
16:33:51 <Zakim> -Laura
16:33:56 <Zakim> -Cooper
16:34:12 <Zakim> -janina
16:34:14 <Zakim> WAI_CG()11:00AM has ended
16:34:16 <Zakim> Attendees were Janina, JR, Gregg_Vanderheiden, kford, Cooper, Gez_Lemon, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Cynthia_Shelly, Gregory_Rosmaita, +1.218.349.aaaa
16:34:21 <oedipus> rrsagent, make minutes
16:34:21 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/04/24-cg-minutes.html oedipus
16:43:08 <oedipus> was there a pf HTML5 issues call this morning?
16:43:22 <oedipus> rrsagent, stop