07:55:49 RRSAgent has joined #html-a11y 07:55:49 logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/04/06-html-a11y-irc 07:55:51 RRSAgent, make logs world 07:55:51 Zakim has joined #html-a11y 07:55:53 Zakim, this will be 2119 07:55:53 ok, trackbot; I see WAI_PFWG(HTMLTF F2F)3:30AM scheduled to start 25 minutes ago 07:55:54 Meeting: HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference 07:55:54 Date: 06 April 2010 07:58:40 SCain has joined #html-a11y 07:59:02 Marco_Ranon has joined #html-a11y 07:59:48 janina has joined #html-a11y 08:04:51 Hi, Everyone! We're starting momentarilly. It'll be a moment or two while we find scribes for the morning. 08:05:55 We're sending pastries your way -- e-pastries, that is --- 08:06:49 We have two, count 'em, two Ipads in the room here. 08:08:25 WAI_PFWG(HTMLTF F2F)3:30AM has now started 08:08:32 +??P0 08:08:45 We're on the Zakim bridge, now. Please join. 08:08:47 I will only call in when absolutely necessary, since I am actually staying at friends this week 08:08:53 I am following irc though 08:09:15 OK, Sylvia. BTW: We'll discuss moving the Media discussion to an earlier hour tomorrow in a moment. 08:09:24 that is very much appreciated, thanks 08:09:25 +Gregory_Rosmaita 08:10:58 richardschwerdtfe has joined #html-a11y 08:11:30 No Skype, I'm afraid. 08:11:58 scribe: Rich 08:12:26 agenda: http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/ftf_2010-04 08:12:35 MichaelC has changed the topic to: HTML A11Y TF FtF; WiFi PIN 173660; agenda http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/ftf_2010-04 08:14:14 prolly 08:14:26 Janina: we should expect Steve Faulkner and Martin Kline around 10am 08:15:02 Janina: lets get something easy to do by 10 08:15:16 Topic: longdesc 08:15:47 Janina: we have spent a fair amount of time on a couple of topics we need to cover 08:15:58 Janina: we have some things near completion 08:16:15 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/longdesc 08:16:36 Janina: The hope in this meeting is that we are closer to consensus on a number of these issues 08:16:36 s/prolly// 08:16:42 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/30 08:17:43 janina: we need to collect recommendations and send to the group at large for later submittal to the main HTML working group 08:17:54 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/LongdescConformingWithWarning 08:18:17 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/LongdescRetention 08:18:18 janina: we will meet with the main task force a week from this Thursday 08:18:59 chaals: when are we doing the video discussion 08:19:22 janina: sometime early tomorrow so that Sylvia may be available at a more reasonable hour 08:19:58 thanks 08:20:02 janina: we are fairly close to consensus on a number of issues 08:21:06 janina: we can start 9am tomorrow morning on medai 08:21:11 s/medai/media 08:21:21 excellent, thanks 08:21:35 should Dick be delayed, we can do it a bit later, too 08:22:08 congrats, rich 08:24:24 eric_carlson has joined #html-a11y 08:26:15 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/30 08:26:16 janina: what to say about longdesc 08:26:21 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/longdesc 08:26:25 janina: you have a change proposal in 08:26:28 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/LongdescConformingWithWarning 08:26:34 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/LongdescRetention 08:26:49 first wiki page is chaals' change proposal 08:27:06 janina: short and long descriptions related to aria-describedby 08:27:37 q+ to say that aria-describedby isn't a solution to longdesc, but a technique that relies on ARIA support 08:27:38 MikeSmith has joined #html-a11y 08:27:56 MikeSmith has joined #html-a11y 08:28:43 chaals: The change proposal is pretty straight foward. longdesc is not clever and is not all that bad and when it is there it serves its purpose. So, I don't see why we should throw it away. 08:28:54 longdesc would have been more widely implemented if had been DESCREF (that could be an external HREF or a bit to be embedded in document containing image 08:29:06 chaals: we spent a trivial amount of time implementing it 08:29:25 chaals: aria-describedby only provides an in-page reference 08:29:28 q? 08:29:49 chaals: I don't plan on taking longdesc forward 08:30:04 chaals: the value of the out of page reference is important for content management systems 08:30:34 chaals: google would not trust this and would treat this as a spam vector 08:31:08 chaals: the long and short is this is simple stuff and works in a tiny minority of cases 08:31:17 Opera longdesc extention: http://userjs.org/scripts/browser/enhancements/frameset-links 08:31:21 mozilla longdesc add-on: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/273 08:31:28 chaals: the implementation of longdesc has been woeful 08:31:48 q? 08:31:50 [Opera implemented longdesc support natively in 10.10 last year] 08:32:33 janina: one point and the ability to ... 08:32:43 ack me 08:32:43 oedipus, you wanted to say that aria-describedby isn't a solution to longdesc, but a technique that relies on ARIA support 08:32:46 +q 08:33:02 janina: you could have aria-describedby to point to a link 08:33:05 rich: yes 08:33:12 chaals: but it is not a direct link 08:33:40 gregory: aria-describedby is not a replacement for longdesc 08:33:49 janina: I think the use case is easy. We need it 08:34:07 janina: education is a good example for why we would need longdesc 08:34:19 janina: but what is the mechanism for getting at it. 08:34:28 s/replacement for longdesc/replacement for longdesc but a technique for identifying detailed descriptive text 08:34:43 q+ to say it isn't the mechanism for getting to the description that matters, but getting it written and used. IMHO 08:34:46 solution should be NATIVE not an overlay 08:34:53 janina: I am concerned that we are going to have two mechanisms to get at long descriptions. ... I am concerned about bloat 08:34:58 ack Joshue 08:35:16 josh: I guess one of the things I am concerned about is that longdesc is well defined 08:35:38 josh: I think we should look at why it failed. ... why has there been little use 08:35:57 josh: we should look at why it does not work 08:36:39 josh: longdesc can take a URI that the screen reader could buffer and we would need AT vendor buy in 08:36:48 cyns has joined #html-a11y 08:36:53 josh: longdesc wins for me 08:37:07 josh: why has it not really worked? 08:37:14 ack me 08:37:14 chaals, you wanted to say it isn't the mechanism for getting to the description that matters, but getting it written and used. IMHO 08:37:40 chaals: there are two things at stake. One is getting decent descriptions 08:37:44 chaals: that has not happened 08:38:38 chaals: why did it fail. We spent more time in Opera arguing why we should use it 08:39:18 implementation in AT is spotty too -- JAWS spawns a new browser instance to display LONGDESC on user request and no other way to have exposed by JAWS 08:39:34 chaals: In a 08:40:04 chaals: in ARIA 2.0 we could have aria-describedby support an off page and on page representation 08:40:06 q+ to say for such a basic feature the solution should be native to HTML5 08:40:43 chaals: the idea of having a prefetch is a problem 08:40:49 q? 08:41:23 chaals: the likely thing is that longdesc is here we should use it now and it will be deprecated later. 08:41:25 q+ 08:41:45 ack me 08:41:45 oedipus, you wanted to say for such a basic feature the solution should be native to HTML5 08:42:16 oedipus: for such a basic feature it should be part of HTML 5 08:42:26 +1 to GJR, the same could be said for most accessibility related stuff. 08:42:32 oedipus: if we push it off to aria alone we will cut off a lot of users will benefit from it 08:42:46 strong plus 1 to MichaelC 08:42:57 michaelC: aria is meant as a technology that will be subsumed over time 08:43:04 q? 08:43:09 ack m 08:43:33 Laura has joined #html-a11y 08:43:43 +1 to using longdesc rather than aria-described by for now 08:43:45 michaelC: the reason ARIA is needed as the language does not support a set of features 08:43:45 2007 PF expresses preference for native solutions in HTML5: http://bit.ly/8Yr31k 08:44:09 janina: the answer sounds like this - yes there is some overlap but the overlap fills a function 08:44:24 janina: the new direction (aria) requires a two step process 08:44:44 also problem of aria-describedby being used as a 2010 D-Link 08:44:50 mikesmith: we will get pushback 08:45:31 q+ 08:45:33 mikesmith: people will argue that people do not use it properly now 08:45:53 mikesmith: josh's point is very relevant 08:46:21 longdesc was good enough for CSS2 - there are over 45 longdescs in that TR 08:46:28 q+ 08:46:34 q+ to ask if lack of support for longdesc in HTML is because implementation of "longdesc" isn't well done, or implementation of "long descriptions" isn't done well? 08:47:07 chaals: we know authors do not use it properly. ... my point is who cares? 08:47:10 ? 08:47:12 implementors can think of longdesc as DESCREF (embed or external) 08:47:12 q? 08:47:22 +q 08:47:24 q? 08:47:31 chaals: there is a measurable amount of content where peope do use it correctly 08:47:32 ack c 08:48:03 chaals: the fact that people like Freedom Scientific use it because there is a demand for it 08:49:03 janina: we should at least honor the need to trim off the dead branches 08:49:13 LONGDESC may be a shakey branch, but not a dead one 08:49:35 [/me is not going to drop on a sword. We will just keep implementing it anyway] 08:49:37 janina: you would get google caching your results 08:49:43 LONGDESC been used in W3C TRs (CSS2, RWAB XG final report, etc.) 08:49:53 scribenick: chaals 08:50:30 Laura has joined #html-a11y 08:50:36 Rich: Having implemented longdesc, 2 things bother me. 1 - create and maintain a separate page, 2 - there is a context switch required for the user. 08:50:38 q+ 08:50:45 ack r 08:51:00 q+ to say that LONGDESC could be like my proposed SUMMARY element -- a child of IMG and FIGURE which is NOT rendered by default, but can be rendered in a multiple of user-defined ways 08:51:05 ... So what would HTML accept? If we had describedBy takes a URI would they accept that? 08:51:26 SteveF: They don't like it in general. 08:51:28 if LONGDESC was DESCREF 08:51:46 +[IPcaller] 08:51:46 the same thing as longdesc - it is just a term 08:52:03 zakim, ipcaller is gregory 08:52:03 +gregory; got it 08:52:41 GJR: Doesn't matter if the URI is external or embedded 08:53:06 zakim, who is here 08:53:06 chaals, you need to end that query with '?' 08:53:07 my mike's not working 08:53:10 zakim, who is here? 08:53:10 On the phone I see FtF, Gregory_Rosmaita, gregory 08:53:10 it's cynthia 08:53:10 was that denis? 08:53:11 FtF has Sally_Cain, Marco_Ranon, Eric_Carlson, Rich_Schwerdtfeger, Janina_Sajka, Joshue_O'Connor, Michael_Cooper, Mike_Smith, Charles_McCathieNevile, Steve_Faulkner 08:53:14 On IRC I see cyns, MikeSmith, eric_carlson, richardschwerdtfe, janina, Marco_Ranon, SCain, Zakim, RRSAgent, Joshue, chaals, MichaelC, oedipus, silvia, trackbot 08:53:20 Laura has joined #html-a11y 08:53:26 q? 08:53:30 zakim, gregory is Cynthia_Shelly 08:53:30 +Cynthia_Shelly; got it 08:54:15 lol 08:54:28 i have a proposed "solomonic solution" in my queued question 08:55:00 Stevef has joined #html-a11y 08:55:13 q? 08:55:31 q+ 08:55:33 ack mich 08:55:33 ack mich 08:55:34 MichaelC, you wanted to ask if lack of support for longdesc in HTML is because implementation of "longdesc" isn't well done, or implementation of "long descriptions" isn't done 08:55:38 ... well? 08:56:36 q+ to suggest we gauge implementor support, and also harp on the "choose our battles" point 08:57:24 oedipus has joined #html-a11y 08:57:26 RS: We need long descriptions - one way or another. 08:57:43 In situations where images are not available to the user (because of disability, choice, or UA limitation) there is a need for a mechanism that presents equivalent content to the user, either as an alternative to the image or in a side-by-side exposition. 08:57:49 Equivalent content is not, nor should it be, and either/or proposition, and its method of exposition should be subject to user control, as some user groups may need both the image and its detailed description in order to make sense of the image or — in the case of a user with an extremely small viewport — to follow the image's flow. 08:57:50 ... putting alt text isn't good enough. I put a long description and point to it. All the time. 08:58:08 amen, chaals 08:58:13 ... as we get more dynamic content and more graphics we will need longer descriptions. Whether they go on a different page is an implemnentation detail. 08:58:43 ... we have been doing this internally for meetings and there are lots of details to sort out about how these get shown (or not). 08:58:54 ... is there a way we can do this without requiring the use of another page? 08:59:10 JOC: If longdesc allowed inline content would that work for you? 08:59:25 RS: Yes. Having fallback content for images is interesting... 08:59:26 q? 08:59:48 ack josh 08:59:50 scribe: rich 09:00:16 josh: aria-describedby was poorly implemented by authors 09:00:29 s/aria-describedby/longdesc/ 09:00:31 josh: this ill always be a niche thing for people 09:00:40 s/ill/will/ 09:01:08 josh: It is up to me for what I do 09:01:12 q? 09:01:16 ack chaals 09:01:22 q? 09:01:58 chaals: we could have fallback content and it has been implemented for a decade. The likely uptake for this is to have an element with fallback content 09:02:05 zakim, Martin_Kliehm has entered FtF 09:02:05 +Martin_Kliehm; got it 09:02:17 chaals: this won't work for image 09:02:42 chaals: architecturally allows us to have in page or out of page content 09:03:45 chaals: the implementation to support in context is a trivial piece of work for a user 09:03:54 +1 to Chaals (and now I remember my second point) 09:04:07 q+ 09:04:39 chaals: the objection by the html working group that this will have crap content is really a "so what" response. 09:04:43 It is about having the choice to read longdesc if you need/want it 09:04:54 chaals: there are fundamental problems with invisible metadata 09:05:10 chaals: people are going to do a crap job because they don't care 09:05:28 chaals: noone has demonstrated that you will break the web 09:05:32 the tree has to be in the forest if anyone is going to hear it fall 09:05:43 chaals: Google only searches a fraction of the web 09:06:09 chaals: people do search the web because it is of valuable to them 09:06:14 +1 that philosophically avoiding invisible metadata vs providing info needed by some people (but others don't want to have to see) is a problem 09:06:36 chaals: what makes people think that aria-describedby will be any different 09:06:48 it is NOT "invisible metadata" BUT "discoverable metadata" 09:06:49 chaals: this is not something we should die on this hill for 09:06:53 +q, to ask can we discuss this issue of invisible metadata (briefly)? 09:07:10 chaals: If they don't support it in HTML 5 I will instruct people to do it 09:07:27 Sean has joined #html-a11y 09:07:28 chaals: there is nothing that fulfuills this functionality 09:07:30 +q or discoverable metadata 09:07:52 +q, or discoverable metadata even 09:07:57 ack me 09:07:57 oedipus, you wanted to say that LONGDESC could be like my proposed SUMMARY element -- a child of IMG and FIGURE which is NOT rendered by default, but can be rendered in a multiple 09:08:01 ... of user-defined ways 09:08:28 chaals: the argument that the web is not pure - so what 09:08:33 +1 to GJR 09:08:38 gregory: it is discoverable metadata 09:08:59 steve: I spend all my work time trying to advise companies on how to make content accessible 09:09:03 +q to ask about this issue of discoverable vs invisible metadata 09:09:14 steve: I would not recommend that they use longdesc 09:09:25 steve: it is only supported by 2 of the main screen readers 09:09:39 steve: I don't think it should go away 09:09:45 q+ to ask steveF what you would recommend instead, and what we should have 09:09:52 steve: i just would not recommend it 09:10:19 steve: the assumption is that aria-describedby does not support rich content 09:10:52 RS: It doesn't restrict rich content 09:11:04 RS: The problem is that the IE implementation is incomplete 09:11:15 rich, are you speaking of IE6 or later versions? 09:11:20 RS: Don't just it by the incomplete implementation 09:11:35 SF: It does work in Chrome 09:11:40 JS: Nothing else does lol 09:11:51 RS: I will ask FS to fix the problem with FF 09:12:26 SF: It is about the implementation, it would be simple to say that if the ID ref is attached to a link, then the AT could give the user the ability to get that link, that would be better 09:12:28 RS; I agree 09:12:30 s/- so what/- which is true. But having something in a spec that is interoperable and we can recommend will allow us to produce more improvement than saying "well, you should do something but we don't know what"/ 09:12:50 SF: I would like to see an improved aria-descrbedby, more versatile 09:12:55 q+ to do a time check 09:13:10 SF: Longdesc should not go away 09:13:13 q? 09:13:15 JS: That is the question 09:13:18 ack steve 09:13:39 s/don't know what"/don't know what". And if we don't figure out how to make longdesc work, it is unclear how we might make aria-describedBy work anyway/ 09:13:57 RS: Aware of multiple step process 09:13:59 ack mike 09:13:59 MikeSmith, you wanted to suggest we gauge implementor support, and also harp on the "choose our battles" point 09:14:01 scribe: rich 09:14:07 kliehm has joined #html-a11y 09:14:25 mikesmith: implementation support is the deciding factor 09:14:59 mikesmith: if we are going to go forward with this we are going to need to get buy in for it 09:15:19 q- 09:15:32 mikesmith: we have a lot of issues we are trying to get agreement about for html 5. We need to establish a priority 09:15:38 http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/ (IE9 test page) 09:15:57 +q to ask why not give longdesc the functionality that aria-describedby and drop aria-describedby that would then be a native solution? 09:15:58 q- 09:16:01 janina: we need to come to s decision 09:16:21 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/30 09:16:25 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/longdesc 09:16:29 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/LongdescConformingWithWarning 09:16:32 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/LongdescRetention 09:16:55 we need to come to a decision on longdesc 09:17:07 present+ Martin_Kliehm 09:17:27 ack c 09:17:41 Cynthia: So, I think first off I am not going to fall on my sword over longdesc 09:17:50 Cynthia: this hidden metadata is an issue 09:19:02 -q as Cynthia has brought up the issue 09:19:03 Cynthia: I think there are solutions to the hidden metadata issue. There are strategies to render the hidden metadata 09:19:07 -q 09:19:32 I like oedipus term "discoverable metadata" rather than "hidden metadata" 09:19:36 Cynthia: longdesc is part of a greater problem that needs to get solved. 09:19:48 can you live with "discoverable metadata" MikeSmith? 09:20:02 oedipus, yeah 09:20:07 rock'n'roll 09:20:16 we need to socialize that wording more 09:20:22 absolutely 09:20:40 +1 as the issue she raises touches on other domains 09:20:49 RS: Could people live with the two step process? 09:20:52 no, 2 step process for described-by is a 2010 D-Link 09:21:08 JS: Do we need a method to support a long description? 09:21:13 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: There is a need for a terse and long descriptor 09:21:31 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: There is a need for a long descriptor 09:21:32 Janina: do people agree we need to get to a long descriiption? 09:21:51 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: There is a need for a long descriptor mechanism 09:21:53 RESOLUTION: There is a need for some mechanism that supports longer descriptions 09:22:40 GJR thinks 2-step process with aria-describedby (pointing to a link to long description) is nothing more than a 2010 version of D-Link 09:22:51 I agree 09:23:06 what about those who need side-by-side exposition of long descriptor and image? 09:23:19 Janina: Can people live with a two step process which would mean an aria-describedby to a link? 09:23:19 me too, but don't it's the end of the world 09:23:46 josh: If the user who has an AT has a table 09:23:58 GJR says 2-step is too much 09:24:26 doesn't alleviate the problem (external or internal exposition) nor address those who need side-by-side exposition 09:25:38 GJR cannot live with 2-step process - D-Link even less implemented than LONGDESC and isn't intuative 09:27:01 q? 09:27:07 q+ 09:27:21 q+ 09:27:29 josh: could we pimp longdesc? 09:27:30 great point, chaals 09:28:18 describedby is NOT the way of the future - it is part of a BRIDGE -- ARIA 1.0 cannot be ossified; need native semantics in host language 09:28:25 zakim, unmute me 09:28:25 sorry, oedipus, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you 09:28:31 zakim, unmute Gregory_Rosmaita 09:28:31 Gregory_Rosmaita should no longer be muted 09:28:36 chaals: describedby is the future ... but ... 09:29:00 Michael: can we support a two step process? 09:29:01 ack cys 09:29:09 ack cyns 09:29:27 GJR would like straight-up-and-down vote along MCooper's lines 09:30:04 i OBJECT to mandating aria-describedby -- the solution MUST be native 09:30:21 maciej's proposal: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/LongdescConformingWithWarning 09:30:34 s/but .../but it's a generalisation of longdesc (which currently doesn't have the same functionality). Learning from longdesc as an evolutionary path towards getting aria-describedBy to work properly seems more intelligent/ 09:30:42 Thanks for the URI GJR 09:31:39 plus 1 to Cooper's plan 09:31:43 q? 09:32:05 GJR: plus 1 to support for internal description 09:32:40 RESOLUTION: People agree to have in page descriptions 09:32:45 GJR: plus 1 to support for externally linked description which can be exposed as per user preferences 09:32:46 Do we want support for internal (in-page) descriptions? 09:32:47 Do we want support for external (out-of-page) descriptions? 09:32:49 Do we want to continue to support longdesc? 09:32:50 Do we want aria-describedby to replace longdesc? 09:32:52 Do we want another feature to replace longdesc? 09:32:54 Can we live with a 2-step process? 09:32:56 Do we prefer a 2-step process? 09:32:58 Do we want to work on longdesc in preference to other features? 09:33:07 GJR: plus one for continued support for longdesc 09:33:47 GJR: aria-describedby is a TECHNIQUE, not a solution; ARIA is a bridge, not a cure-all 09:34:13 GJR: even an external resource can be embedded or displayed in document that contains image 09:34:51 GJR: work with the devil we know -- LONGDESC 09:35:01 GJR: NO to a 2 step process 09:35:31 RESOLUTION: Group agrees that we should have out of page descriptions but has concerns about its implementation 09:35:42 GJR: work on LONGDESC -- that is where effort has been concentrated 09:36:26 GJR proposes that we answer Cooper's questions 09:36:53 q+ 09:37:00 ack me 09:37:02 q+ 09:37:06 Cooper: do we want to continue to support longdesc? 09:37:19 plus 1 to continue to support LONGDESC 09:38:42 minus one for aria-describedby as replacement for LONGDESC -- aria-described is a technique, not a solution; ARIA is bridging tech, not an ossified solution 09:39:32 I don't object to it, but don't really support it either 09:39:40 -1 09:39:59 yes, we want LONGDESC until something proven to be better comes along 09:40:15 -1 was to longdesc in html 7 09:40:23 RESOLUTION: The group wants longdesc to continue in HTML 5 09:40:45 GJR wants LONGDESC until something proven to be better comes along 09:41:14 RESOLUTION: The group does NOT want longdesc to continue indefinitely although there are some objections 09:41:22 minus one for aria-describedby as replacement for LONGDESC -- aria-described is a technique, not a solution; ARIA is bridging tech, not an ossified solution 09:41:44 [I agree with GJR's desire for longdesc until something better comes along... and hopes we can get there with ARIA 2 and HTML 6...] 09:41:49 RESOLUTON: Do we want aria-describedby to replace longdesc? 09:42:06 GJR: minus 1 - it is a technique 09:42:35 [i agree with chaals' agreement with me ;-)] 09:42:45 don't object to or support aria-described by to replace longdesc. no api for structured text alternative. 09:43:06 I guess you could call that implementation concerns again 09:43:22 RESOLUTION: We do want aria-describedby to replace longdesc. 09:43:41 GJR objects to aria-describedby as replacement - it is just a TECHNIQUE 09:44:15 [/me notes that there is a serious issue caused by having to use HTML and not XHTML as the likely format of a long description] 09:44:57 michael: do we want a new feature to replace longdesc in HTML 5? 09:45:04 [/me thinks that if we add aria-describedBy into HTML then it stops becoming a technique and becomes native markup] 09:45:33 [but what about ARIA 2.0 - will HTML5 be trapped forever supporting ARIA 1.0?] 09:46:41 we need a method that works for those who have never heard of ARIA and who DON'T want to read another long spec to make HTML5 accessible 09:46:58 q+ to say I don't object to new feature, but don't think it's the best use of our time to engineer one. It could be less time-consuming than fighting for longdesc. Would support it if it's part of a larger solution for the "hidden metatdata" problem 09:47:07 [anyone who has read the HTML5 spec can happily read another tiny 200-pages... ;) ] 09:47:12 we also need a method for those who don't use AT and can't take advantage of describedby except perhaps through CSS 09:47:24 [ROTFFL] 09:47:58 cyns, discoverable data, not hidden 09:48:10 RESOLUTON: we do not want to ask for a new feature in HTML 5 to replace longdesc 09:48:31 oedipus, but it's not really discoverable for a lot of people right now. That's the problem I'm trying to solve. 09:48:32 RESOLUTION: we do not want to ask for a new feature in HTML 5 to replace longdesc 09:48:55 cyns, that's EXACTLY what we should be concentrating on!!! 09:49:49 RESOLUTION: We do not want to change aria-describedby in the ARIA 1.0 time frame 09:49:54 plus 1 09:49:59 q+ 09:50:33 RESOLUTION: aria-describedby should be enhanced in the ARIA 2.0 time frame to support external descriptions (out of page) 09:50:33 ] 09:50:37 plus 1 (including support for CURIES!!!) 09:50:54 NO to 2 step process 09:50:58 still have implementation concerns about that, but we can talk about that during aria 2.0 09:51:46 can live with it 09:51:56 no objection 09:52:03 GJR OBJECTS strongly to 2 step process (2010 D-Link) 09:52:54 no to 2-step solutions of any type 09:53:11 i can live with that 09:53:23 RESOLUTION: We can live with a two step process but we do not prefer it 09:54:06 agree with cyns - tie to larger issue of "discoverable metadata" 09:54:39 cooper: do we want to prioritize to push longdesc in HTML 5 09:56:15 q? 09:56:40 janina: we will come back to longdesc later in the discussion 09:56:50 canvas and longdesc are equally important for HTML LC 09:57:41 q+ to ask if ARIA 1.0 becomes a hard-coded part of HTML5, how will support for external resources with describedby be implemented 09:58:48 ack me 09:58:48 oedipus, you wanted to ask if ARIA 1.0 becomes a hard-coded part of HTML5, how will support for external resources with describedby be implemented 09:58:58 RESOLUTION: come back longdesc later in the face to face 09:59:39 -Gregory_Rosmaita 10:00:11 Scribe: Joshue 10:10:32 +Gregory_Rosmaita 10:11:17 richardschwerdtfe has joined #html-a11y 10:14:41 Birmingham is famous for indian food! 10:15:54 Stevef has joined #html-a11y 10:17:09 Zakim, who's on the phone? 10:17:09 On the phone I see FtF, Cynthia_Shelly, Gregory_Rosmaita 10:17:10 FtF has Sally_Cain, Marco_Ranon, Eric_Carlson, Rich_Schwerdtfeger, Janina_Sajka, Joshue_O'Connor, Michael_Cooper, Mike_Smith, Charles_McCathieNevile, Steve_Faulkner, Martin_Kliehm 10:17:20 Tonights restaurant is the Brasserie at Malmaison. Here is the link http://www.malmaison-birmingham.com/indulge/brasserie and there is a link to the pdf menu on there 10:19:15 josh sounds like a screen reader! 10:20:19 +Sean_Hayes 10:21:43 q? 10:21:47 have fish n chips for me ;-) 10:21:53 ack MikeSmith 10:21:59 ack cyns 10:21:59 cyns, you wanted to say I don't object to new feature, but don't think it's the best use of our time to engineer one. It could be less time-consuming than fighting for longdesc. 10:22:03 ... Would support it if it's part of a larger solution for the "hidden metatdata" problem 10:22:22 ack stevef 10:22:31 TOPIC: ALT 10:22:32 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/04/06-html-a11y-minutes.html oedipus 10:23:02 JS: We have some suggestions from a group of us that have looked at this issue. It was PF, WCAG ,ATWG etc. 10:23:07 chair: Janina_Sajka 10:23:10 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/04/06-html-a11y-minutes.html oedipus 10:23:30 JS: This is an important feature in HTML, we looked at solutions for both long and short solutions etc. 10:24:00 JS: The guidance from the WAI group on alt (published last april), do we want to accept that or look at a change proposal? 10:24:11 JS: Do we agree, do we want to change etc? 10:24:16 RS: What is the current thinking? 10:24:21 http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Text_Alternatives 10:24:48 JS: That it should stay, there are some things in the WAI guidance doc, we can put the URI into IRC, we can look at Lauras change doc also. 10:25:01 JS: Lets look at the WAI report and then at Lauras change proposal 10:25:11 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/IssueAltAttribute 10:25:26 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/IssueAltAttribute#Proposed_Solutions 10:25:31 MS: I want to note that there has been no disagreement about whether alt should stay or not, but if it should be required and what the spec should say. 10:25:44 http://www.w3.org/2009/06/Text-Alternatives-in-HTML5 10:25:45 RS: This will come down to validation. 10:26:02 RS: Most content is generated when text gets to the browser. 10:26:11 RS: Do we leave it up to the rules? 10:26:36 RS: WCAG 2 is being used by gov departs around the world, alt will be required. 10:26:39 WAI CG Consensus Resolutions on Text alternatives in HTML 5 (2009-06-10) http://www.w3.org/2009/06/Text-Alternatives-in-HTML5 10:26:54 JS: To meet government requirements? 10:26:59 RS: Yes 10:27:01 SC: Yes 10:27:13 q+ to say that we do care what the spec says 10:27:24 CMN: It is not a question of conformance, the spec will not be the motivation. 10:27:49 RS: 10:27:54 q+ to say that validation warnings on alt have been a major teaching tool 10:28:04 Chaals: But that is only a part of the web 10:28:38 RS: What about if the UN convention gets adopted? etc WCAG is the standard and will be harmonised. 10:29:02 RS: Don't fight for alt to be required as this is a push on the validator 10:29:28 JS: Non-conforming pages will will, as regs say you gotta have it. 10:29:29 q? 10:29:34 q? 10:29:59 q+ 10:30:01 MS: We do care what the spec says, it isn't restricted to saying if it is required or not. 10:30:04 I can hear MikeSmith too 10:30:07 ack m 10:30:07 MikeSmith, you wanted to say that we do care what the spec says 10:30:13 MS: The spec goes into usage details. 10:30:35 WAI CG Consensus Resolutions on Text alternatives in HTML 5 (2009-06-10) http://www.w3.org/2009/06/Text-Alternatives-in-HTML5 10:30:36 q+ 10:30:51 MS: I hope that this info will be moved to a more appropriate space 10:31:00 MS: Its not about if it is required or not. 10:31:07 +1 to moving detail to more appropriate places! 10:31:15 MS: There may be conflict with guidance in WCAG or other places. 10:31:29 MS: Also if the spec guidance should be there or not. 10:31:40 SF: I have it in the change proposal. 10:31:45 SF: It should come out. 10:32:02 RS: What it is? 10:32:14 Chaals: This stuff should be ripped out of the spec. 10:32:26 SF: Its about author conformance guidelines. 10:32:37 SF: There are conflicts 10:32:46 plus 1 to js' proposal to split issues 10:32:48 JS: This should be split as two issues. 10:32:56 JS: The technical aspects and guidance from the spec 10:33:06 WAI CG Consensus Resolutions on Text alternatives in HTML 5 (2009-06-10) http://www.w3.org/2009/06/Text-Alternatives-in-HTML5 10:33:06 -> http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/text-level-semantics.html#alt HTML5 spec "Requirements for providing text to act as an alternative for images" 10:33:14 RRSAgent, make minutes 10:33:14 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/04/06-html-a11y-minutes.html MikeSmith 10:33:18 JS: Any guidance should be pointed to in WCAG and not be independent. Even just for having one source. 10:33:46 SF: But Ian will say that alt is not just about a11y but Universal Access. 10:33:57 JS: Another reason to split them. 10:34:01 q? 10:34:46 RS: talking of , browsers that support a11y - we could state that authors must do x and then deal with alt in the same way, while referencing WCAG. Would that work Mike? 10:35:01 SF: The conformance requirements are about guidance for authors. 10:35:08 RS: Isn't that in WCAG? 10:35:16 JS: Yes also in HTML 5 spec? 10:35:32 SF: What is in the spec is largely the editors idea of these things? 10:35:38 http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/text-level-semantics.html#alt 10:35:51 RS: We will just have to tell Hixie that this is the way it should be. 10:36:08 JS: There is a W3C spec, this is a maintanence question. 10:36:19 HTML5: "Except where otherwise specified, the alt attribute must be specified and its value must not be empty; the value must be an appropriate replacement for the image. The specific requirements for the alt attribute depend on what the image is intended to represent, as described in the following sections" 10:36:20 q+ 10:36:23 JS: Is there anything in the supporting techs for alt that we need that isn't covered? 10:36:34 WAI CG Consensus Resolutions on Text alternatives in HTML 5 (2009-06-10) http://www.w3.org/2009/06/Text-Alternatives-in-HTML5 10:36:34 RS: What is the change proposal? 10:36:54 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/IssueAltAttribute#Proposed_Solutions 10:37:17 MS: Re: Rich's question. We have a discussion on authoring conformance in the spec, I think the spec should not define things in what authors should do but what docs should do. 10:37:20 q? 10:37:26 Interesting point 10:37:54 MS: You should be able to validation the doc seperately from the author, teh DOC must, not the author. 10:38:25 mikesmith, the URI you pointed to in the HTML5 spec states: "Except where otherwise specified, the alt attribute must be specified and its value must not be empty; the value must be an appropriate replacement for the image. The specific requirements for the alt attribute depend on what the image is intended to represent, as described in the following sections" 10:38:33 MS: So we should look at doc conformance and not author conformance. 10:39:08 ack cyns 10:39:08 cyns, you wanted to say that validation warnings on alt have been a major teaching tool 10:39:16 MS: There could be changes in the validator behaviour to show an error where it currently does. 10:39:27 CS: I want to talk about alt being required. 10:39:36 CS: This is a teachable moment etc. 10:39:48 ack c 10:39:52 it also helps that in an alphabetic list of attributes for IMG, @alt comes first! 10:40:03 oedipus, yep - the "Except where otherwise specified" qualifier is the core of the issue 10:40:06 CS: Rich is right, sites will do it, but that it shows up in validation is valuable to teach developers about a11y. 10:40:12 mikesmith, agreed 10:40:36 CS: I disagree that it should not be empty setting null alt is very useful. 10:40:40 +1 to Cyns 10:40:53 RS: I am not sweating that alt is required. 10:40:56 ack st 10:41:24 q+ to say @alt has to be required by default with enumerated "exceptions" and techniques to mark such "exceptions" as presentational 10:41:38 SF: The concensus doc agreed that we (sic) said it was acceptable that there was not alt under some circumstances, such as aria-labelledby etc. 10:41:40 http://www.w3.org/2009/06/Text-Alternatives-in-HTML5 10:42:00 SF: So there are some cases where this is ok, and we have documented them. 10:42:12 q+ 10:42:17 SF: It sounds like we are going back to a basic issue that we already agreed on. 10:43:04 @alt and aria-labelledby are not mutually exclusive, provided content is same 10:43:06 SF: The issue is that they are circumstantial. Both have been rejected because we agreed that HTML conformance should not be defined in ARIA. 10:43:15 SF: That is a layering violation. 10:43:38 SF: Should we go back to the discussion that no alt should flag a warning etc? 10:43:48 ack sean 10:44:14 ack s 10:44:15 SH: This is a deviation, we have