IRC log of html-a11y on 2010-04-06

Timestamps are in UTC.

07:55:49 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #html-a11y
07:55:49 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/04/06-html-a11y-irc
07:55:51 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
07:55:51 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #html-a11y
07:55:53 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be 2119
07:55:53 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see WAI_PFWG(HTMLTF F2F)3:30AM scheduled to start 25 minutes ago
07:55:54 [trackbot]
Meeting: HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference
07:55:54 [trackbot]
Date: 06 April 2010
07:58:40 [SCain]
SCain has joined #html-a11y
07:59:02 [Marco_Ranon]
Marco_Ranon has joined #html-a11y
07:59:48 [janina]
janina has joined #html-a11y
08:04:51 [janina]
Hi, Everyone! We're starting momentarilly. It'll be a moment or two while we find scribes for the morning.
08:05:55 [janina]
We're sending pastries your way -- e-pastries, that is ---
08:06:49 [janina]
We have two, count 'em, two Ipads in the room here.
08:08:25 [Zakim]
WAI_PFWG(HTMLTF F2F)3:30AM has now started
08:08:32 [Zakim]
+??P0
08:08:45 [janina]
We're on the Zakim bridge, now. Please join.
08:08:47 [silvia]
I will only call in when absolutely necessary, since I am actually staying at friends this week
08:08:53 [silvia]
I am following irc though
08:09:15 [janina]
OK, Sylvia. BTW: We'll discuss moving the Media discussion to an earlier hour tomorrow in a moment.
08:09:24 [silvia]
that is very much appreciated, thanks
08:09:25 [Zakim]
+Gregory_Rosmaita
08:10:58 [richardschwerdtfe]
richardschwerdtfe has joined #html-a11y
08:11:30 [janina]
No Skype, I'm afraid.
08:11:58 [richardschwerdtfe]
scribe: Rich
08:12:26 [MichaelC]
agenda: http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/ftf_2010-04
08:12:35 [MichaelC]
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 [chaals]
prolly
08:14:26 [richardschwerdtfe]
Janina: we should expect Steve Faulkner and Martin Kline around 10am
08:15:02 [richardschwerdtfe]
Janina: lets get something easy to do by 10
08:15:16 [richardschwerdtfe]
Topic: longdesc
08:15:47 [richardschwerdtfe]
Janina: we have spent a fair amount of time on a couple of topics we need to cover
08:15:58 [richardschwerdtfe]
Janina: we have some things near completion
08:16:15 [oedipus]
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/longdesc
08:16:36 [richardschwerdtfe]
Janina: The hope in this meeting is that we are closer to consensus on a number of these issues
08:16:36 [chaals]
s/prolly//
08:16:42 [oedipus]
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/30
08:17:43 [richardschwerdtfe]
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 [oedipus]
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/LongdescConformingWithWarning
08:18:17 [oedipus]
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/LongdescRetention
08:18:18 [richardschwerdtfe]
janina: we will meet with the main task force a week from this Thursday
08:18:59 [richardschwerdtfe]
chaals: when are we doing the video discussion
08:19:22 [richardschwerdtfe]
janina: sometime early tomorrow so that Sylvia may be available at a more reasonable hour
08:19:58 [silvia]
thanks
08:20:02 [richardschwerdtfe]
janina: we are fairly close to consensus on a number of issues
08:21:06 [richardschwerdtfe]
janina: we can start 9am tomorrow morning on medai
08:21:11 [richardschwerdtfe]
s/medai/media
08:21:21 [silvia]
excellent, thanks
08:21:35 [silvia]
should Dick be delayed, we can do it a bit later, too
08:22:08 [oedipus]
congrats, rich
08:24:24 [eric_carlson]
eric_carlson has joined #html-a11y
08:26:15 [oedipus]
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/30
08:26:16 [richardschwerdtfe]
janina: what to say about longdesc
08:26:21 [oedipus]
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/longdesc
08:26:25 [richardschwerdtfe]
janina: you have a change proposal in
08:26:28 [oedipus]
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/LongdescConformingWithWarning
08:26:34 [oedipus]
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/LongdescRetention
08:26:49 [oedipus]
first wiki page is chaals' change proposal
08:27:06 [richardschwerdtfe]
janina: short and long descriptions related to aria-describedby
08:27:37 [oedipus]
q+ to say that aria-describedby isn't a solution to longdesc, but a technique that relies on ARIA support
08:27:38 [MikeSmith]
MikeSmith has joined #html-a11y
08:27:56 [MikeSmith]
MikeSmith has joined #html-a11y
08:28:43 [richardschwerdtfe]
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 [oedipus]
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 [richardschwerdtfe]
chaals: we spent a trivial amount of time implementing it
08:29:25 [richardschwerdtfe]
chaals: aria-describedby only provides an in-page reference
08:29:28 [oedipus]
q?
08:29:49 [richardschwerdtfe]
chaals: I don't plan on taking longdesc forward
08:30:04 [richardschwerdtfe]
chaals: the value of the out of page reference is important for content management systems
08:30:34 [richardschwerdtfe]
chaals: google would not trust this and would treat this as a spam vector
08:31:08 [richardschwerdtfe]
chaals: the long and short is this is simple stuff and works in a tiny minority of cases
08:31:17 [oedipus]
Opera longdesc extention: http://userjs.org/scripts/browser/enhancements/frameset-links
08:31:21 [oedipus]
mozilla longdesc add-on: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/273
08:31:28 [richardschwerdtfe]
chaals: the implementation of longdesc has been woeful
08:31:48 [oedipus]
q?
08:31:50 [chaals]
[Opera implemented longdesc support natively in 10.10 last year]
08:32:33 [richardschwerdtfe]
janina: one point and the ability to ...
08:32:43 [oedipus]
ack me
08:32:43 [Zakim]
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 [Joshue]
+q
08:33:02 [richardschwerdtfe]
janina: you could have aria-describedby to point to a link
08:33:05 [richardschwerdtfe]
rich: yes
08:33:12 [richardschwerdtfe]
chaals: but it is not a direct link
08:33:40 [richardschwerdtfe]
gregory: aria-describedby is not a replacement for longdesc
08:33:49 [richardschwerdtfe]
janina: I think the use case is easy. We need it
08:34:07 [richardschwerdtfe]
janina: education is a good example for why we would need longdesc
08:34:19 [richardschwerdtfe]
janina: but what is the mechanism for getting at it.
08:34:28 [oedipus]
s/replacement for longdesc/replacement for longdesc but a technique for identifying detailed descriptive text
08:34:43 [chaals]
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 [oedipus]
solution should be NATIVE not an overlay
08:34:53 [richardschwerdtfe]
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 [chaals]
ack Joshue
08:35:16 [richardschwerdtfe]
josh: I guess one of the things I am concerned about is that longdesc is well defined
08:35:38 [richardschwerdtfe]
josh: I think we should look at why it failed. ... why has there been little use
08:35:57 [richardschwerdtfe]
josh: we should look at why it does not work
08:36:39 [richardschwerdtfe]
josh: longdesc can take a URI that the screen reader could buffer and we would need AT vendor buy in
08:36:48 [cyns]
cyns has joined #html-a11y
08:36:53 [richardschwerdtfe]
josh: longdesc wins for me
08:37:07 [richardschwerdtfe]
josh: why has it not really worked?
08:37:14 [chaals]
ack me
08:37:14 [Zakim]
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 [richardschwerdtfe]
chaals: there are two things at stake. One is getting decent descriptions
08:37:44 [richardschwerdtfe]
chaals: that has not happened
08:38:38 [richardschwerdtfe]
chaals: why did it fail. We spent more time in Opera arguing why we should use it
08:39:18 [oedipus]
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 [richardschwerdtfe]
chaals: In a
08:40:04 [richardschwerdtfe]
chaals: in ARIA 2.0 we could have aria-describedby support an off page and on page representation
08:40:06 [oedipus]
q+ to say for such a basic feature the solution should be native to HTML5
08:40:43 [richardschwerdtfe]
chaals: the idea of having a prefetch is a problem
08:40:49 [janina]
q?
08:41:23 [richardschwerdtfe]
chaals: the likely thing is that longdesc is here we should use it now and it will be deprecated later.
08:41:25 [MichaelC]
q+
08:41:45 [oedipus]
ack me
08:41:45 [Zakim]
oedipus, you wanted to say for such a basic feature the solution should be native to HTML5
08:42:16 [richardschwerdtfe]
oedipus: for such a basic feature it should be part of HTML 5
08:42:26 [Joshue]
+1 to GJR, the same could be said for most accessibility related stuff.
08:42:32 [richardschwerdtfe]
oedipus: if we push it off to aria alone we will cut off a lot of users will benefit from it
08:42:46 [oedipus]
strong plus 1 to MichaelC
08:42:57 [richardschwerdtfe]
michaelC: aria is meant as a technology that will be subsumed over time
08:43:04 [janina]
q?
08:43:09 [janina]
ack m
08:43:33 [Laura]
Laura has joined #html-a11y
08:43:43 [SCain]
+1 to using longdesc rather than aria-described by for now
08:43:45 [richardschwerdtfe]
michaelC: the reason ARIA is needed as the language does not support a set of features
08:43:45 [oedipus]
2007 PF expresses preference for native solutions in HTML5: http://bit.ly/8Yr31k
08:44:09 [richardschwerdtfe]
janina: the answer sounds like this - yes there is some overlap but the overlap fills a function
08:44:24 [richardschwerdtfe]
janina: the new direction (aria) requires a two step process
08:44:44 [oedipus]
also problem of aria-describedby being used as a 2010 D-Link
08:44:50 [richardschwerdtfe]
mikesmith: we will get pushback
08:45:31 [chaals]
q+
08:45:33 [richardschwerdtfe]
mikesmith: people will argue that people do not use it properly now
08:45:53 [richardschwerdtfe]
mikesmith: josh's point is very relevant
08:46:21 [oedipus]
longdesc was good enough for CSS2 - there are over 45 longdescs in that TR
08:46:28 [richardschwerdtfe]
q+
08:46:34 [MichaelC]
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 [richardschwerdtfe]
chaals: we know authors do not use it properly. ... my point is who cares?
08:47:10 [MikeSmith]
?
08:47:12 [oedipus]
implementors can think of longdesc as DESCREF (embed or external)
08:47:12 [MikeSmith]
q?
08:47:22 [Joshue]
+q
08:47:24 [janina]
q?
08:47:31 [richardschwerdtfe]
chaals: there is a measurable amount of content where peope do use it correctly
08:47:32 [janina]
ack c
08:48:03 [richardschwerdtfe]
chaals: the fact that people like Freedom Scientific use it because there is a demand for it
08:49:03 [richardschwerdtfe]
janina: we should at least honor the need to trim off the dead branches
08:49:13 [oedipus]
LONGDESC may be a shakey branch, but not a dead one
08:49:35 [chaals]
[/me is not going to drop on a sword. We will just keep implementing it anyway]
08:49:37 [richardschwerdtfe]
janina: you would get google caching your results
08:49:43 [oedipus]
LONGDESC been used in W3C TRs (CSS2, RWAB XG final report, etc.)
08:49:53 [chaals]
scribenick: chaals
08:50:30 [Laura]
Laura has joined #html-a11y
08:50:36 [chaals]
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 [chaals]
q+
08:50:45 [janina]
ack r
08:51:00 [oedipus]
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 [chaals]
... So what would HTML accept? If we had describedBy takes a URI would they accept that?
08:51:26 [chaals]
SteveF: They don't like it in general.
08:51:28 [oedipus]
if LONGDESC was DESCREF
08:51:46 [Zakim]
+[IPcaller]
08:51:46 [oedipus]
the same thing as longdesc - it is just a term
08:52:03 [chaals]
zakim, ipcaller is gregory
08:52:03 [Zakim]
+gregory; got it
08:52:41 [chaals]
GJR: Doesn't matter if the URI is external or embedded
08:53:06 [chaals]
zakim, who is here
08:53:06 [Zakim]
chaals, you need to end that query with '?'
08:53:07 [cyns]
my mike's not working
08:53:10 [chaals]
zakim, who is here?
08:53:10 [Zakim]
On the phone I see FtF, Gregory_Rosmaita, gregory
08:53:10 [cyns]
it's cynthia
08:53:10 [oedipus]
was that denis?
08:53:11 [Zakim]
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 [Zakim]
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]
Laura has joined #html-a11y
08:53:26 [oedipus]
q?
08:53:30 [MichaelC]
zakim, gregory is Cynthia_Shelly
08:53:30 [Zakim]
+Cynthia_Shelly; got it
08:54:15 [cyns]
lol
08:54:28 [oedipus]
i have a proposed "solomonic solution" in my queued question
08:55:00 [Stevef]
Stevef has joined #html-a11y
08:55:13 [oedipus]
q?
08:55:31 [Stevef]
q+
08:55:33 [oedipus]
ack mich
08:55:33 [oedipus]
ack mich
08:55:34 [Zakim]
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 [Zakim]
... well?
08:56:36 [MikeSmith]
q+ to suggest we gauge implementor support, and also harp on the "choose our battles" point
08:57:24 [oedipus]
oedipus has joined #html-a11y
08:57:26 [chaals]
RS: We need long descriptions - one way or another.
08:57:43 [oedipus]
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 [oedipus]
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 [chaals]
... putting alt text isn't good enough. I put a long description and point to it. All the time.
08:58:08 [oedipus]
amen, chaals
08:58:13 [chaals]
... 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 [chaals]
... 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 [chaals]
... is there a way we can do this without requiring the use of another page?
08:59:10 [chaals]
JOC: If longdesc allowed inline content would that work for you?
08:59:25 [chaals]
RS: Yes. Having fallback content for images is interesting...
08:59:26 [oedipus]
q?
08:59:48 [chaals]
ack josh
08:59:50 [richardschwerdtfe]
scribe: rich
09:00:16 [richardschwerdtfe]
josh: aria-describedby was poorly implemented by authors
09:00:29 [chaals]
s/aria-describedby/longdesc/
09:00:31 [richardschwerdtfe]
josh: this ill always be a niche thing for people
09:00:40 [chaals]
s/ill/will/
09:01:08 [richardschwerdtfe]
josh: It is up to me for what I do
09:01:12 [richardschwerdtfe]
q?
09:01:16 [oedipus]
ack chaals
09:01:22 [janina]
q?
09:01:58 [richardschwerdtfe]
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 [MichaelC]
zakim, Martin_Kliehm has entered FtF
09:02:05 [Zakim]
+Martin_Kliehm; got it
09:02:17 [richardschwerdtfe]
chaals: this won't work for image
09:02:42 [richardschwerdtfe]
chaals: architecturally allows us to have in page or out of page content
09:03:45 [richardschwerdtfe]
chaals: the implementation to support in context is a trivial piece of work for a user
09:03:54 [Joshue]
+1 to Chaals (and now I remember my second point)
09:04:07 [cyns]
q+
09:04:39 [richardschwerdtfe]
chaals: the objection by the html working group that this will have crap content is really a "so what" response.
09:04:43 [SCain]
It is about having the choice to read longdesc if you need/want it
09:04:54 [richardschwerdtfe]
chaals: there are fundamental problems with invisible metadata
09:05:10 [richardschwerdtfe]
chaals: people are going to do a crap job because they don't care
09:05:28 [richardschwerdtfe]
chaals: noone has demonstrated that you will break the web
09:05:32 [oedipus]
the tree has to be in the forest if anyone is going to hear it fall
09:05:43 [richardschwerdtfe]
chaals: Google only searches a fraction of the web
09:06:09 [richardschwerdtfe]
chaals: people do search the web because it is of valuable to them
09:06:14 [MichaelC]
+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 [richardschwerdtfe]
chaals: what makes people think that aria-describedby will be any different
09:06:48 [oedipus]
it is NOT "invisible metadata" BUT "discoverable metadata"
09:06:49 [richardschwerdtfe]
chaals: this is not something we should die on this hill for
09:06:53 [Joshue]
+q, to ask can we discuss this issue of invisible metadata (briefly)?
09:07:10 [richardschwerdtfe]
chaals: If they don't support it in HTML 5 I will instruct people to do it
09:07:27 [Sean]
Sean has joined #html-a11y
09:07:28 [richardschwerdtfe]
chaals: there is nothing that fulfuills this functionality
09:07:30 [Joshue]
+q or discoverable metadata
09:07:52 [Joshue]
+q, or discoverable metadata even
09:07:57 [oedipus]
ack me
09:07:57 [Zakim]
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 [Zakim]
... of user-defined ways
09:08:28 [richardschwerdtfe]
chaals: the argument that the web is not pure - so what
09:08:33 [Joshue]
+1 to GJR
09:08:38 [richardschwerdtfe]
gregory: it is discoverable metadata
09:08:59 [richardschwerdtfe]
steve: I spend all my work time trying to advise companies on how to make content accessible
09:09:03 [Joshue]
+q to ask about this issue of discoverable vs invisible metadata
09:09:14 [richardschwerdtfe]
steve: I would not recommend that they use longdesc
09:09:25 [richardschwerdtfe]
steve: it is only supported by 2 of the main screen readers
09:09:39 [richardschwerdtfe]
steve: I don't think it should go away
09:09:45 [chaals]
q+ to ask steveF what you would recommend instead, and what we should have
09:09:52 [richardschwerdtfe]
steve: i just would not recommend it
09:10:19 [richardschwerdtfe]
steve: the assumption is that aria-describedby does not support rich content
09:10:52 [Joshue]
RS: It doesn't restrict rich content
09:11:04 [Joshue]
RS: The problem is that the IE implementation is incomplete
09:11:15 [oedipus]
rich, are you speaking of IE6 or later versions?
09:11:20 [Joshue]
RS: Don't just it by the incomplete implementation
09:11:35 [Joshue]
SF: It does work in Chrome
09:11:40 [Joshue]
JS: Nothing else does lol
09:11:51 [Joshue]
RS: I will ask FS to fix the problem with FF
09:12:26 [Joshue]
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 [Joshue]
RS; I agree
09:12:30 [chaals]
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 [Joshue]
SF: I would like to see an improved aria-descrbedby, more versatile
09:12:55 [MichaelC]
q+ to do a time check
09:13:10 [Joshue]
SF: Longdesc should not go away
09:13:13 [richardschwerdtfe]
q?
09:13:15 [Joshue]
JS: That is the question
09:13:18 [oedipus]
ack steve
09:13:39 [chaals]
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 [Joshue]
RS: Aware of multiple step process
09:13:59 [MichaelC]
ack mike
09:13:59 [Zakim]
MikeSmith, you wanted to suggest we gauge implementor support, and also harp on the "choose our battles" point
09:14:01 [richardschwerdtfe]
scribe: rich
09:14:07 [kliehm]
kliehm has joined #html-a11y
09:14:25 [richardschwerdtfe]
mikesmith: implementation support is the deciding factor
09:14:59 [richardschwerdtfe]
mikesmith: if we are going to go forward with this we are going to need to get buy in for it
09:15:19 [chaals]
q-
09:15:32 [richardschwerdtfe]
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 [oedipus]
http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/ (IE9 test page)
09:15:57 [Joshue]
+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 [MichaelC]
q-
09:16:01 [richardschwerdtfe]
janina: we need to come to s decision
09:16:21 [oedipus]
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/30
09:16:25 [oedipus]
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/longdesc
09:16:29 [oedipus]
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/LongdescConformingWithWarning
09:16:32 [oedipus]
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/LongdescRetention
09:16:55 [richardschwerdtfe]
we need to come to a decision on longdesc
09:17:07 [kliehm]
present+ Martin_Kliehm
09:17:27 [MichaelC]
ack c
09:17:41 [richardschwerdtfe]
Cynthia: So, I think first off I am not going to fall on my sword over longdesc
09:17:50 [richardschwerdtfe]
Cynthia: this hidden metadata is an issue
09:19:02 [Joshue]
-q as Cynthia has brought up the issue
09:19:03 [richardschwerdtfe]
Cynthia: I think there are solutions to the hidden metadata issue. There are strategies to render the hidden metadata
09:19:07 [Joshue]
-q
09:19:32 [MikeSmith]
I like oedipus term "discoverable metadata" rather than "hidden metadata"
09:19:36 [richardschwerdtfe]
Cynthia: longdesc is part of a greater problem that needs to get solved.
09:19:48 [oedipus]
can you live with "discoverable metadata" MikeSmith?
09:20:02 [MikeSmith]
oedipus, yeah
09:20:07 [oedipus]
rock'n'roll
09:20:16 [MikeSmith]
we need to socialize that wording more
09:20:22 [oedipus]
absolutely
09:20:40 [Joshue]
+1 as the issue she raises touches on other domains
09:20:49 [Joshue]
RS: Could people live with the two step process?
09:20:52 [oedipus]
no, 2 step process for described-by is a 2010 D-Link
09:21:08 [Joshue]
JS: Do we need a method to support a long description?
09:21:13 [oedipus]
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: There is a need for a terse and long descriptor
09:21:31 [oedipus]
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: There is a need for a long descriptor
09:21:32 [richardschwerdtfe]
Janina: do people agree we need to get to a long descriiption?
09:21:51 [oedipus]
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: There is a need for a long descriptor mechanism
09:21:53 [richardschwerdtfe]
RESOLUTION: There is a need for some mechanism that supports longer descriptions
09:22:40 [oedipus]
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 [MichaelC]
I agree
09:23:06 [oedipus]
what about those who need side-by-side exposition of long descriptor and image?
09:23:19 [richardschwerdtfe]
Janina: Can people live with a two step process which would mean an aria-describedby to a link?
09:23:19 [cyns]
me too, but don't it's the end of the world
09:23:46 [richardschwerdtfe]
josh: If the user who has an AT has a table
09:23:58 [oedipus]
GJR says 2-step is too much
09:24:26 [oedipus]
doesn't alleviate the problem (external or internal exposition) nor address those who need side-by-side exposition
09:25:38 [oedipus]
GJR cannot live with 2-step process - D-Link even less implemented than LONGDESC and isn't intuative
09:27:01 [janina]
q?
09:27:07 [chaals]
q+
09:27:21 [cyns]
q+
09:27:29 [richardschwerdtfe]
josh: could we pimp longdesc?
09:27:30 [oedipus]
great point, chaals
09:28:18 [oedipus]
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 [oedipus]
zakim, unmute me
09:28:25 [Zakim]
sorry, oedipus, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
09:28:31 [oedipus]
zakim, unmute Gregory_Rosmaita
09:28:31 [Zakim]
Gregory_Rosmaita should no longer be muted
09:28:36 [richardschwerdtfe]
chaals: describedby is the future ... but ...
09:29:00 [richardschwerdtfe]
Michael: can we support a two step process?
09:29:01 [oedipus]
ack cys
09:29:09 [oedipus]
ack cyns
09:29:27 [oedipus]
GJR would like straight-up-and-down vote along MCooper's lines
09:30:04 [oedipus]
i OBJECT to mandating aria-describedby -- the solution MUST be native
09:30:21 [oedipus]
maciej's proposal: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/LongdescConformingWithWarning
09:30:34 [chaals]
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 [Joshue]
Thanks for the URI GJR
09:31:39 [oedipus]
plus 1 to Cooper's plan
09:31:43 [MikeSmith]
q?
09:32:05 [oedipus]
GJR: plus 1 to support for internal description
09:32:40 [richardschwerdtfe]
RESOLUTION: People agree to have in page descriptions
09:32:45 [oedipus]
GJR: plus 1 to support for externally linked description which can be exposed as per user preferences
09:32:46 [MichaelC]
Do we want support for internal (in-page) descriptions?
09:32:47 [MichaelC]
Do we want support for external (out-of-page) descriptions?
09:32:49 [MichaelC]
Do we want to continue to support longdesc?
09:32:50 [MichaelC]
Do we want aria-describedby to replace longdesc?
09:32:52 [MichaelC]
Do we want another feature to replace longdesc?
09:32:54 [MichaelC]
Can we live with a 2-step process?
09:32:56 [MichaelC]
Do we prefer a 2-step process?
09:32:58 [MichaelC]
Do we want to work on longdesc in preference to other features?
09:33:07 [oedipus]
GJR: plus one for continued support for longdesc
09:33:47 [oedipus]
GJR: aria-describedby is a TECHNIQUE, not a solution; ARIA is a bridge, not a cure-all
09:34:13 [oedipus]
GJR: even an external resource can be embedded or displayed in document that contains image
09:34:51 [oedipus]
GJR: work with the devil we know -- LONGDESC
09:35:01 [oedipus]
GJR: NO to a 2 step process
09:35:31 [richardschwerdtfe]
RESOLUTION: Group agrees that we should have out of page descriptions but has concerns about its implementation
09:35:42 [oedipus]
GJR: work on LONGDESC -- that is where effort has been concentrated
09:36:26 [oedipus]
GJR proposes that we answer Cooper's questions
09:36:53 [MikeSmith]
q+
09:37:00 [chaals]
ack me
09:37:02 [cyns]
q+
09:37:06 [richardschwerdtfe]
Cooper: do we want to continue to support longdesc?
09:37:19 [oedipus]
plus 1 to continue to support LONGDESC
09:38:42 [oedipus]
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 [cyns]
I don't object to it, but don't really support it either
09:39:40 [cyns]
-1
09:39:59 [oedipus]
yes, we want LONGDESC until something proven to be better comes along
09:40:15 [cyns]
-1 was to longdesc in html 7
09:40:23 [richardschwerdtfe]
RESOLUTION: The group wants longdesc to continue in HTML 5
09:40:45 [oedipus]
GJR wants LONGDESC until something proven to be better comes along
09:41:14 [richardschwerdtfe]
RESOLUTION: The group does NOT want longdesc to continue indefinitely although there are some objections
09:41:22 [oedipus]
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 [chaals]
[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 [richardschwerdtfe]
RESOLUTON: Do we want aria-describedby to replace longdesc?
09:42:06 [oedipus]
GJR: minus 1 - it is a technique
09:42:35 [oedipus]
[i agree with chaals' agreement with me ;-)]
09:42:45 [cyns]
don't object to or support aria-described by to replace longdesc. no api for structured text alternative.
09:43:06 [cyns]
I guess you could call that implementation concerns again
09:43:22 [richardschwerdtfe]
RESOLUTION: We do want aria-describedby to replace longdesc.
09:43:41 [oedipus]
GJR objects to aria-describedby as replacement - it is just a TECHNIQUE
09:44:15 [chaals]
[/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 [richardschwerdtfe]
michael: do we want a new feature to replace longdesc in HTML 5?
09:45:04 [chaals]
[/me thinks that if we add aria-describedBy into HTML then it stops becoming a technique and becomes native markup]
09:45:33 [oedipus]
[but what about ARIA 2.0 - will HTML5 be trapped forever supporting ARIA 1.0?]
09:46:41 [oedipus]
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 [cyns]
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 [chaals]
[anyone who has read the HTML5 spec can happily read another tiny 200-pages... ;) ]
09:47:12 [oedipus]
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 [oedipus]
[ROTFFL]
09:47:58 [oedipus]
cyns, discoverable data, not hidden
09:48:10 [richardschwerdtfe]
RESOLUTON: we do not want to ask for a new feature in HTML 5 to replace longdesc
09:48:31 [cyns]
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 [richardschwerdtfe]
RESOLUTION: we do not want to ask for a new feature in HTML 5 to replace longdesc
09:48:55 [oedipus]
cyns, that's EXACTLY what we should be concentrating on!!!
09:49:49 [richardschwerdtfe]
RESOLUTION: We do not want to change aria-describedby in the ARIA 1.0 time frame
09:49:54 [oedipus]
plus 1
09:49:59 [Stevef]
q+
09:50:33 [richardschwerdtfe]
RESOLUTION: aria-describedby should be enhanced in the ARIA 2.0 time frame to support external descriptions (out of page)
09:50:33 [richardschwerdtfe]
]
09:50:37 [oedipus]
plus 1 (including support for CURIES!!!)
09:50:54 [oedipus]
NO to 2 step process
09:50:58 [cyns]
still have implementation concerns about that, but we can talk about that during aria 2.0
09:51:46 [cyns]
can live with it
09:51:56 [cyns]
no objection
09:52:03 [oedipus]
GJR OBJECTS strongly to 2 step process (2010 D-Link)
09:52:54 [oedipus]
no to 2-step solutions of any type
09:53:11 [oedipus]
i can live with that
09:53:23 [richardschwerdtfe]
RESOLUTION: We can live with a two step process but we do not prefer it
09:54:06 [oedipus]
agree with cyns - tie to larger issue of "discoverable metadata"
09:54:39 [richardschwerdtfe]
cooper: do we want to prioritize to push longdesc in HTML 5
09:56:15 [oedipus]
q?
09:56:40 [richardschwerdtfe]
janina: we will come back to longdesc later in the discussion
09:56:50 [oedipus]
canvas and longdesc are equally important for HTML LC
09:57:41 [oedipus]
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 [oedipus]
ack me
09:58:48 [Zakim]
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 [richardschwerdtfe]
RESOLUTION: come back longdesc later in the face to face
09:59:39 [Zakim]
-Gregory_Rosmaita
10:00:11 [Joshue]
Scribe: Joshue
10:10:32 [Zakim]
+Gregory_Rosmaita
10:11:17 [richardschwerdtfe]
richardschwerdtfe has joined #html-a11y
10:14:41 [Marco_Ranon]
Birmingham is famous for indian food!
10:15:54 [Stevef]
Stevef has joined #html-a11y
10:17:09 [MikeSmith]
Zakim, who's on the phone?
10:17:09 [Zakim]
On the phone I see FtF, Cynthia_Shelly, Gregory_Rosmaita
10:17:10 [Zakim]
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 [SCain]
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 [cyns]
josh sounds like a screen reader!
10:20:19 [Zakim]
+Sean_Hayes
10:21:43 [MikeSmith]
q?
10:21:47 [cyns]
have fish n chips for me ;-)
10:21:53 [MikeSmith]
ack MikeSmith
10:21:59 [cyns]
ack cyns
10:21:59 [Zakim]
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 [Zakim]
... Would support it if it's part of a larger solution for the "hidden metatdata" problem
10:22:22 [oedipus]
ack stevef
10:22:31 [Joshue]
TOPIC: ALT
10:22:32 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/04/06-html-a11y-minutes.html oedipus
10:23:02 [Joshue]
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 [oedipus]
chair: Janina_Sajka
10:23:10 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/04/06-html-a11y-minutes.html oedipus
10:23:30 [Joshue]
JS: This is an important feature in HTML, we looked at solutions for both long and short solutions etc.
10:24:00 [Joshue]
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 [Joshue]
JS: Do we agree, do we want to change etc?
10:24:16 [Joshue]
RS: What is the current thinking?
10:24:21 [oedipus]
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Text_Alternatives
10:24:48 [Joshue]
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 [Joshue]
JS: Lets look at the WAI report and then at Lauras change proposal
10:25:11 [oedipus]
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/IssueAltAttribute
10:25:26 [oedipus]
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/IssueAltAttribute#Proposed_Solutions
10:25:31 [Joshue]
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 [oedipus]
http://www.w3.org/2009/06/Text-Alternatives-in-HTML5
10:25:45 [Joshue]
RS: This will come down to validation.
10:26:02 [Joshue]
RS: Most content is generated when text gets to the browser.
10:26:11 [Joshue]
RS: Do we leave it up to the rules?
10:26:36 [Joshue]
RS: WCAG 2 is being used by gov departs around the world, alt will be required.
10:26:39 [oedipus]
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 [Joshue]
JS: To meet government requirements?
10:26:59 [Joshue]
RS: Yes
10:27:01 [Joshue]
SC: Yes
10:27:13 [MikeSmith]
q+ to say that we do care what the spec says
10:27:24 [Joshue]
CMN: It is not a question of conformance, the spec will not be the motivation.
10:27:49 [Joshue]
RS: <describes some 508 cases in the case>
10:27:54 [cyns]
q+ to say that validation warnings on alt have been a major teaching tool
10:28:04 [Joshue]
Chaals: But that is only a part of the web
10:28:38 [Joshue]
RS: What about if the UN convention gets adopted? etc WCAG is the standard and will be harmonised.
10:29:02 [Joshue]
RS: Don't fight for alt to be required as this is a push on the validator
10:29:28 [Joshue]
JS: Non-conforming pages will will, as regs say you gotta have it.
10:29:29 [richardschwerdtfe]
q?
10:29:34 [janina]
q?
10:29:59 [chaals]
q+
10:30:01 [Joshue]
MS: We do care what the spec says, it isn't restricted to saying if it is required or not.
10:30:04 [cyns]
I can hear MikeSmith too
10:30:07 [janina]
ack m
10:30:07 [Zakim]
MikeSmith, you wanted to say that we do care what the spec says
10:30:13 [Joshue]
MS: The spec goes into usage details.
10:30:35 [oedipus]
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 [Stevef]
q+
10:30:51 [Joshue]
MS: I hope that this info will be moved to a more appropriate space
10:31:00 [Joshue]
MS: Its not about if it is required or not.
10:31:07 [cyns]
+1 to moving detail to more appropriate places!
10:31:15 [Joshue]
MS: There may be conflict with guidance in WCAG or other places.
10:31:29 [Joshue]
MS: Also if the spec guidance should be there or not.
10:31:40 [Joshue]
SF: I have it in the change proposal.
10:31:45 [Joshue]
SF: It should come out.
10:32:02 [Joshue]
RS: What it is?
10:32:14 [Joshue]
Chaals: This stuff should be ripped out of the spec.
10:32:26 [Joshue]
SF: Its about author conformance guidelines.
10:32:37 [Joshue]
SF: There are conflicts
10:32:46 [oedipus]
plus 1 to js' proposal to split issues
10:32:48 [Joshue]
JS: This should be split as two issues.
10:32:56 [Joshue]
JS: The technical aspects and guidance from the spec
10:33:06 [oedipus]
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 [MikeSmith]
-> 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 [MikeSmith]
RRSAgent, make minutes
10:33:14 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/04/06-html-a11y-minutes.html MikeSmith
10:33:18 [Joshue]
JS: Any guidance should be pointed to in WCAG and not be independent. Even just for having one source.
10:33:46 [Joshue]
SF: But Ian will say that alt is not just about a11y but Universal Access.
10:33:57 [Joshue]
JS: Another reason to split them.
10:34:01 [janina]
q?
10:34:46 [Joshue]
RS: talking of <canvas>, 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 [Joshue]
SF: The conformance requirements are about guidance for authors.
10:35:08 [Joshue]
RS: Isn't that in WCAG?
10:35:16 [Joshue]
JS: Yes also in HTML 5 spec?
10:35:32 [Joshue]
SF: What is in the spec is largely the editors idea of these things?
10:35:38 [oedipus]
http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/text-level-semantics.html#alt
10:35:51 [Joshue]
RS: We will just have to tell Hixie that this is the way it should be.
10:36:08 [Joshue]
JS: There is a W3C spec, this is a maintanence question.
10:36:19 [oedipus]
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 [Sean]
q+
10:36:23 [Joshue]
JS: Is there anything in the supporting techs for alt that we need that isn't covered?
10:36:34 [oedipus]
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 [Joshue]
RS: What is the change proposal?
10:36:54 [oedipus]
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/IssueAltAttribute#Proposed_Solutions
10:37:17 [Joshue]
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 [janina]
q?
10:37:26 [Joshue]
Interesting point
10:37:54 [Joshue]
MS: You should be able to validation the doc seperately from the author, teh DOC must, not the author.
10:38:25 [oedipus]
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 [Joshue]
MS: So we should look at doc conformance and not author conformance.
10:39:08 [oedipus]
ack cyns
10:39:08 [Zakim]
cyns, you wanted to say that validation warnings on alt have been a major teaching tool
10:39:16 [Joshue]
MS: There could be changes in the validator behaviour to show an error where it currently does.
10:39:27 [Joshue]
CS: I want to talk about alt being required.
10:39:36 [Joshue]
CS: This is a teachable moment etc.
10:39:48 [janina]
ack c
10:39:52 [oedipus]
it also helps that in an alphabetic list of attributes for IMG, @alt comes first!
10:40:03 [MikeSmith]
oedipus, yep - the "Except where otherwise specified" qualifier is the core of the issue
10:40:06 [Joshue]
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 [oedipus]
mikesmith, agreed
10:40:36 [Joshue]
CS: I disagree that it should not be empty setting null alt is very useful.
10:40:40 [Joshue]
+1 to Cyns
10:40:53 [Joshue]
RS: I am not sweating that alt is required.
10:40:56 [janina]
ack st
10:41:24 [oedipus]
q+ to say @alt has to be required by default with enumerated "exceptions" and techniques to mark such "exceptions" as presentational
10:41:38 [Joshue]
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 [oedipus]
http://www.w3.org/2009/06/Text-Alternatives-in-HTML5
10:42:00 [Joshue]
SF: So there are some cases where this is ok, and we have documented them.
10:42:12 [chaals]
q+
10:42:17 [Joshue]
SF: It sounds like we are going back to a basic issue that we already agreed on.
10:43:04 [oedipus]
@alt and aria-labelledby are not mutually exclusive, provided content is same
10:43:06 [Joshue]
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 [Joshue]
SF: That is a layering violation.
10:43:38 [Joshue]
SF: Should we go back to the discussion that no alt should flag a warning etc?
10:43:48 [oedipus]
ack sean
10:44:14 [janina]
ack s
10:44:15 [Joshue]
SH: This is a deviation, we have <video> and <audio> alt and longdesc will have to be included in this.
10:44:59 [Joshue]
SH: Because, you can have a short description for pieces of audio, and a transcript for longer pieces, the transcript etc is not covered.
10:45:05 [Joshue]
SF: Can you not do this?
10:45:06 [oedipus]
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_TextAssociations_Requirements
10:45:07 [janina]
q?
10:45:15 [Joshue]
SH: A fallback is for where content is not supported.
10:45:24 [Joshue]
Chaals: We should talk about this tomorrow.
10:45:32 [Joshue]
SH: I wanted to bring it up.
10:45:43 [oedipus]
ack me
10:45:43 [Zakim]
oedipus, you wanted to say @alt has to be required by default with enumerated "exceptions" and techniques to mark such "exceptions" as presentational
10:46:01 [Joshue]
GJR: Strong +1 to having alt by default.
10:46:08 [MikeSmith]
q?
10:46:21 [MikeSmith]
q+ to ask oedipus what he means by "exceptions"
10:46:23 [Joshue]
GJR: alt and aria-labelled by are complimentary and not mutually exlusive.
10:46:43 [Joshue]
Chaals: I agree with Cyns, a null value for alt is needed.
10:47:15 [Joshue]
Chaals: THere are two possible errors, 1) that there is no alt or equivalent 2) where there is bad alt included for conformance.
10:47:27 [Joshue]
Chaals: We need to disambiguate these cases.
10:47:59 [Joshue]
Chaals: The second is harder to fix.
10:48:27 [Joshue]
Chaals: The teachable moment is important, but it may be better to leave it broken that to fix it poorly.
10:48:41 [chaals]
s/may be /is /
10:48:42 [Joshue]
MS: I wanted to ask GJR, what do you mean about exceptions?
10:48:55 [Joshue]
GJR: Role = presentataion
10:48:56 [chaals]
s/poorly/by adding a useless dummy text/
10:49:06 [Joshue]
MS: So it would be ok to not have a role on the att?
10:49:16 [Joshue]
GJR: Depends on context.
10:49:29 [Joshue]
GJR: alt ="" is ok if role = presentaion
10:49:33 [Joshue]
+1 to GJR
10:49:46 [chaals]
+1 too
10:50:03 [Joshue]
MC: This refs WCAG which allows role = presentation so alt can be ommitted.
10:50:14 [Joshue]
MS: So can it be an empty string?
10:50:20 [oedipus]
http://esw.w3.org/PF/XTech/HTML5/DescriptorRequirements
10:50:23 [cyns]
cyns has joined #html-a11y
10:50:27 [Joshue]
Chaals: The attr can be absent.
10:50:32 [janina]
q?
10:50:52 [Joshue]
Does that not trigger heuristics in the AT?
10:50:57 [Joshue]
<yup>
10:51:20 [janina]
ack c
10:51:23 [janina]
ack m
10:51:23 [Zakim]
MikeSmith, you wanted to ask oedipus what he means by "exceptions"
10:51:24 [Joshue]
MC: The presence of alt = pres shows more intention.
10:51:33 [Joshue]
MS: Are there other exceptions?
10:51:36 [Stevef]
http://www.w3.org/2009/06/Text-Alternatives-in-HTML5
10:51:37 [oedipus]
http://www.w3.org/2009/06/Text-Alternatives-in-HTML5
10:51:42 [Joshue]
Chaals: They are in change proposal.
10:51:43 [cyns]
alt="" and role="presentation" do the same thing in API mappings. That works in some browsers now and should be standardized.
10:51:57 [cyns]
they are equivalent constructions
10:52:07 [oedipus]
oedipus has joined #html-a11y
10:52:14 [Joshue]
<group looks at http://www.w3.org/2009/06/Text-Alternatives-in-HTML5>
10:52:35 [Joshue]
SF: Some ARIA stuff was rejected because of layering.
10:52:58 [Joshue]
SF: The idea is that ARIA conformance shouldn't effect HTML.
10:53:04 [oedipus]
sean, re: your point about video and audio, i tried to propose a generalized standard approach to multimedia elements in HTML5: http://esw.w3.org/PF/XTech/HTML5/MediaSpecificElements
10:53:08 [Joshue]
RS: I say that is included in HTML 5.
10:53:19 [Joshue]
JS: So it becomes an issue in HTML 5 as it is included.
10:53:29 [janina]
q?
10:53:35 [Joshue]
RS: This is good for ATs.
10:53:57 [Joshue]
RS: Are you saying, if you don't have role=pres, or null?
10:54:05 [Joshue]
SF: I am happy with either.
10:54:16 [Joshue]
SF: Laura submitted them.
10:54:20 [oedipus]
role="presentation" and alt="" but NO alt="" without role="presentation"
10:54:29 [Joshue]
SF: They are illumuinating.
10:54:41 [Joshue]
RS: Role=pres is more precise.
10:55:18 [Joshue]
JS: Do we want to endorse Lauras change proposal or our previous recommendations?
10:55:19 [oedipus]
mikesmith, does this make sense? PROPOSED: role="presentation" and alt="" but NO alt="" without role="presentation"
10:55:58 [Joshue]
RS: Null alt is a hack, role=pres is a part of the host language and the alt text has to have meaning.
10:56:13 [oedipus]
s/role=pres/role="presentation/G
10:56:15 [Joshue]
CS: You can't validate that.
10:56:31 [MikeSmith]
oedipus, I think the argument against that is, alt="" and role=presentation mean the same thing, so you don't need both
10:56:38 [Joshue]
CS: If WCAG has that as a technique thats fine.
10:57:10 [Joshue]
RS: Role=pres takes the object out of the DOM tree.
10:57:39 [oedipus]
mikesmith, role="presentation" is for AT hooking -- if alt="" i want to know about it, if alt="" AND role="presentation" are defined can skip over anything marked role="presentation"
10:57:51 [Joshue]
CS: Some browsers do that already.
10:57:51 [Joshue]
SF: Some say that may not be the right behaviour.
10:57:53 [janina]
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20090126
10:57:57 [Joshue]
CS: It is reasonable to leave alt out when role=pres is present.
10:58:06 [MikeSmith]
oedipus, I see
10:58:09 [Joshue]
RS: It is not required that browsers take it out of the tree.
10:58:21 [Joshue]
SF: Role = pres == alt=""
10:58:27 [Joshue]
RS: For image only?
10:58:30 [Joshue]
SF: Yes
10:58:50 [Joshue]
RS: The difference is that some browsers take it out of the tree but that is not stated in the spec.
10:58:59 [Joshue]
GJR: That is the role of presentation.
10:59:08 [Joshue]
RS: Yes
10:59:14 [Joshue]
RS: But they are not the same.
10:59:41 [Joshue]
GJR: If there is a null alt I may want to query it, but with role=pres means I will ignore it.
11:00:08 [Joshue]
CS: We need it because it is a part of ARIA.
11:00:09 [oedipus]
s/means i will ignore it/can set my AT to ignore anything marked role="presentation"/
11:00:20 [oedipus]
s/means I will ignore it/can set my AT to ignore anything marked role="presentation"/
11:00:29 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/04/06-html-a11y-minutes.html oedipus
11:00:36 [Joshue]
MC: re: text alternatives role=pres is more explicit about author intent.
11:00:52 [Joshue]
RS: It drops the object from the tree, they are not the same.
11:01:05 [Joshue]
RS: Ian will say they are the same, but they are not.
11:01:13 [Joshue]
JS: Both are needed.
11:01:59 [oedipus]
if author uses alt="" should generate an error if role="presentation" is NOT present
11:02:12 [Joshue]
MK: What does the AT do if the alt tags are not there?
11:02:46 [Joshue]
MK: Does it mean that alt=true if some alt is present?
11:02:52 [oedipus]
mk, most screen readers will say "image" or "graphic" but it is up to individual user settings (tell me about unlabeled graphics, don't tell me about unlabelled graphics
11:02:59 [janina]
q?
11:03:03 [Joshue]
CS: Alt is not defined as a boolean attribute
11:03:33 [Joshue]
Chaals: We cannot magically process stuff.
11:03:45 [Joshue]
JS: We will talk about heuristics later.
11:03:52 [Joshue]
<discussion on heuristics>
11:03:56 [oedipus]
mk, several screen-readers offer a cascade order if @alt absent - @title, @src, @href (if hyperlink)
11:05:28 [Joshue]
RS: Can we right this so, if presentation is provided you don't need alt on an image?
11:05:45 [Joshue]
MS: Yes, the RELAXNG schema allows this?
11:05:54 [Joshue]
RS: Why don't we do this?
11:06:01 [Joshue]
Chaals: Thats in there!
11:06:20 [oedipus]
if author uses alt="" should generate an error if role="presentation" is NOT present
11:06:28 [cyns]
url for change proposal?
11:06:38 [Joshue]
MS: I don't think there will be disagreement that if you have role=pres then it is ok to not have alt.
11:06:52 [kliehm]
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20090126
11:06:54 [Joshue]
SF: What about layering violation.
11:06:59 [oedipus]
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/longdesc
11:07:03 [Joshue]
JS: We have answered that!
11:07:09 [Joshue]
JS: It is not a violation.
11:07:20 [Joshue]
MS: ARIA is a part of the language, so there is no violation.
11:07:24 [oedipus]
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20090126
11:07:30 [Joshue]
SF: But ARIA is only for AT!
11:07:36 [Joshue]
JS: It doesn't have to be.
11:07:46 [Joshue]
<laughs all around>
11:07:48 [oedipus]
http://www.w3.org/2009/06/Text-Alternatives-in-HTML5
11:08:05 [Joshue]
JS: Do we want to support the change proposal?
11:08:20 [Joshue]
SF: I want to in principle, but we need to look at it.
11:08:25 [oedipus]
q+ to ask if can clarify if http://www.w3.org/2009/06/Text-Alternatives-in-HTML5 is change proposal we are discussing
11:08:35 [Joshue]
RS: I am reading it but it is not quite right.
11:08:49 [oedipus]
ack me
11:08:49 [Zakim]
oedipus, you wanted to ask if can clarify if http://www.w3.org/2009/06/Text-Alternatives-in-HTML5 is change proposal we are discussing
11:09:17 [Joshue]
SF: Does this meeting support the WAI adhoc document?
11:09:35 [oedipus]
GJR supports WAI CG Ad Hoc document
11:09:39 [Joshue]
http://www.w3.org/2009/06/Text-Alternatives-in-HTML5
11:09:55 [cyns]
strong +1 to http://www.w3.org/2009/06/Text-Alternatives-in-HTML5
11:10:35 [Joshue]
JS: Lauras doc may be technically wrong but we can support the intent.
11:10:48 [cyns]
I do not suppor the missing attribute. The rest looks ok.
11:10:58 [Joshue]
Chaals: Lauras doc does support a <missing> attribute and I don't support that.
11:11:01 [chaals]
+1 to cynthia
11:11:11 [Joshue]
JS: We can fix editorial imperfections.
11:11:17 [oedipus]
do not support missing attribute but support the Ad Hoc CG proposal
11:11:27 [MikeSmith]
-> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/31 for the record, HTML WG issue 31, title: "What to do when a reasonable text equivalent is unknown/unavailable?"
11:11:44 [oedipus]
1.<img> is only valid when at least one of the following is true:
11:11:44 [oedipus]
◦@alt is present (empty or non-empty) OR
11:11:44 [oedipus]
◦@aria-labelledby is present (non-empty only) OR
11:11:44 [oedipus]
◦the <img> is located within a <figure> that has a non-empty <legend> OR
11:11:44 [oedipus]
◦@role="presentation"
11:11:46 [Joshue]
RS: In the WAI CG, we are missing stuff
11:12:02 [cyns]
We have reached the following consensus concerning "automatically generated" alternative text:
11:12:02 [cyns]
In 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.)"
11:12:12 [Joshue]
<discussion on what is/isn't in the WAI CG doc>
11:12:17 [oedipus]
aria-labelledby MUST be equivalent to the value defined for @alt
11:12:36 [MikeSmith]
q+ to remind that the core of the disagreement about making alt required is not about presentational cases, but instead about the "What to do when a reasonable text equivalent is unknown/unavailable?" case
11:12:48 [Joshue]
JS: It sounds like we support the WAI CG ad hoc but there are a couple of things missing.
11:13:02 [oedipus]
if missing or empty, then implicit role="image"
11:13:18 [Joshue]
<discussion on alt>
11:13:40 [cyns]
q+ to say WAI doc 'doesn't oppose' missing attribute. We don't want to add it. IIRC, we were saying that we won't fight about it, but we don't want it. should remove from change proposal.
11:14:03 [cyns]
q+ to say that HTML shouldn't discuss alt="" at all. Leave that to WCAG.
11:14:23 [oedipus]
s/if missing or empty, then/if @alt is missing or empty without role="presentation", then
11:14:27 [Joshue]
RS: I would prefer that there are no hacks, like alt null because we had no solution. I prefer that we explicitly state that it is presentational.
11:14:30 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/04/06-html-a11y-minutes.html oedipus
11:14:39 [Joshue]
RS: This is better as we didn't have this in HTML 4 etc.
11:14:52 [Joshue]
RS: So null alt is a hack.
11:14:59 [Joshue]
RS: Cyns would that work.
11:15:12 [Marco_Ranon]
i think alt="" should stay for legacy reasons
11:15:22 [Joshue]
CS: I would prefer that the spec didn't talk about what alt should be at all.
11:15:33 [oedipus]
alt="" should stay as long as role is used (presentation|image)
11:15:48 [Joshue]
CS: HTML should say that alt should just be a string and for guidance look at WCAG.
11:15:57 [Joshue]
<general agreement>
11:16:13 [Joshue]
MS: I think we can get the chairs to support this in principle.
11:16:25 [Joshue]
MS: I don't think this is the issue however.
11:17:03 [Joshue]
MS: The case we have argued about is what to do when you are not able to have alt text for an image, such as Flickr or a Webcam.
11:17:19 [oedipus]
fickr case is an authoring tool/aggregator implementation issue, not a markup issue
11:17:22 [Joshue]
MS: Streaming media etc, what do you do?
11:17:28 [oedipus]
s/fickr/flickr
11:17:38 [Joshue]
JS: The first we addressed in the WAI ad hoc.
11:17:46 [Joshue]
MC: This is a WCAG issue.
11:17:51 [Joshue]
MS: No its not.
11:18:08 [oedipus]
q+
11:18:14 [MichaelC]
q+
11:18:46 [Joshue]
MS: The position is that it is harmful to try to mandate alt text in those cases as people will just dump rubbish text to pass validation.
11:18:49 [oedipus]
flickr case is a red herring - there should be a MEANS of adding real @alt text to flickr/aggregator images
11:18:49 [janina]
ack mik
11:18:49 [Zakim]
MikeSmith, you wanted to remind that the core of the disagreement about making alt required is not about presentational cases, but instead about the "What to do when a reasonable
11:18:52 [Zakim]
... text equivalent is unknown/unavailable?" case
11:19:29 [Joshue]
SF: I have looked at this, 1) the webcam etc is part of a link 2) also there is some text such as the date etc within the image. That info should be included as a text alt.
11:19:33 [MichaelC]
q+ to say that the use cases relate to unknown / unknowable text alternative; better to provide a mechanism to explicitly state that than rely on absence of alt to imply it
11:19:35 [Joshue]
SF: that should at least be there.
11:20:02 [Joshue]
SF: So the cases where there cannot be something is less than you would think.
11:20:17 [MichaelC]
ack me
11:20:17 [Zakim]
MichaelC, you wanted to say that the use cases relate to unknown / unknowable text alternative; better to provide a mechanism to explicitly state that than rely on absence of alt
11:20:21 [Zakim]
... to imply it
11:20:29 [Joshue]
MC: The issue is where the alt text is unknown and may unknowable. This could be addressed by stating that the alt is unknown.
11:20:39 [Joshue]
MC: This would be explicit.
11:20:42 [chaals]
q+
11:20:55 [Joshue]
MS: So omitting the alt is not a confusing semantic.
11:20:57 [MikeSmith]
q+ to respond to MichaelC
11:22:46 [MichaelC]
ack cy
11:22:46 [Zakim]
cyns, you wanted to say WAI doc 'doesn't oppose' missing attribute. We don't want to add it. IIRC, we were saying that we won't fight about it, but we don't want it. should
11:22:50 [Zakim]
... remove from change proposal. and to say that HTML shouldn't discuss alt="" at all. Leave that to WCAG.
11:23:02 [janina]
q?
11:23:04 [oedipus]
flickr case is a red herring - there should be a MEANS of adding real @alt text to flickr/aggregator images, if nothing can be done automagically at load, then burden on authoring tool/aggregator to make annotation (terse and long) mechanism available to the individual author
11:23:11 [MichaelC]
ack o
11:23:12 [Joshue]
CS: Most of Lauras proposal is about missing, so remove that and move it to a separate change proposal.
11:23:25 [Joshue]
GJR: The Flickr case is a red herring.
11:23:58 [Joshue]
GJR: I mention it as the HTML WG will come back with an objection.
11:24:07 [cyns]
Agree that there are solutions to the flickr case. That's why I want to separate the non-controversial presentation stuff.
11:24:13 [janina]
q?
11:24:20 [MichaelC]
ack c
11:24:21 [Joshue]
MC: The "I don't know what the alt should be" will support that.
11:24:43 [Joshue]
Chaals: I repeat what I said at the beginning (see beginning).
11:25:10 [Joshue]
Chaals: Don't fix validation problems with dummy text.
11:25:27 [oedipus]
cyns, are you working off of http://www.w3.org/2009/06/Text-Alternatives-in-HTML5 or http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/longdesc
11:25:27 [Joshue]
Chaals: That is worse, the indicator for this should be that there is not alt attribute.
11:25:30 [Joshue]
+q
11:25:50 [Joshue]
Chaals: Either is a useful attribute or nothing there.
11:25:55 [MichaelC]
q+ to say I agree not providing alt attribute is a simple way to say "I don't know it" but it's not an explicit way
11:25:59 [Stevef]
q+
11:26:08 [Joshue]
MS: <echo> Chaals
11:26:21 [Laura]
Laura has joined #html-a11y
11:26:22 [Zakim]
+Laura
11:26:22 [Joshue]
MS: Omitting the attribute is the way to do this.
11:26:42 [MichaelC]
q+ to say but I can live with relying on omitted alt, as long as we don't think artificial alt will be added to silence validator
11:26:45 [Joshue]
MS: Using the <missing> attribute will mean that this will be used just to shut up the validator.
11:26:51 [oedipus]
ack mikesmith
11:26:51 [Zakim]
MikeSmith, you wanted to respond to MichaelC
11:27:05 [Joshue]
MS: We won't get agreement to have alt required in the HTML 5 WG.
11:27:27 [janina]
q?
11:27:29 [Joshue]
RS: I think we should say that if you know that it is presentational state that. Leave it to WCAG to define the alt.
11:27:39 [oedipus]
for legacy purposes, alt="" needs to be mapped to role="presentation"
11:28:24 [janina]
q?
11:28:28 [oedipus]
JOC: completely agree with chaals - problem about leaving out @alt is that with current AT, missing alt will cause problems for users -- rather have concrete way to bypass whether using role="presentation" -- pushing that is best
11:28:29 [janina]
ack j
11:29:37 [oedipus]
HTML5 should point out that use of spacer images is forbidden and should be controlled by CSS
11:29:45 [Joshue]
RS: I could live with that. Make it simpler on the author etc. If not possible follow WCAG 2. alt is only a part of the discussion. alt is the thin end of the wedge.
11:29:54 [Stevef]
GJR: it does sorta
11:30:00 [cyns]
q+ to say that *anything* in HTML 5 about what the string in the alt attribute should contain is a slippery slope. don't go there.
11:30:20 [Joshue]
RS: Is alt required on image maps etc?
11:30:33 [MichaelC]
ack me
11:30:33 [Zakim]
MichaelC, you wanted to say I agree not providing alt attribute is a simple way to say "I don't know it" but it's not an explicit way and to say but I can live with relying on
11:30:37 [Zakim]
... omitted alt, as long as we don't think artificial alt will be added to silence validator
11:30:46 [oedipus]
yes, @alt on imagemap areas is still needed
11:31:14 [Joshue]
MC: Re: Omitting, is that it is simple but the problem is repair. I can live without it. Alt text is an issue of completness.
11:31:36 [Joshue]
MC: <shows examples on screen of various images with/without alt text>
11:31:57 [Laura]
Requiring a set of programmatically valid options helps ensure that images have complete structure. Complete structure requires both src and text alternatives.
11:32:00 [oedipus]
strong plus 1 to MCooper's conclusion - alt is as necessary as src
11:32:07 [Laura]
src is to sighted users as text alternatives is to some users with disabilities.
11:32:12 [oedipus]
yes!
11:32:14 [Joshue]
MC: Alt is needed as an image of completeness.
11:32:16 [Laura]
* Omit the src attribute and sighted users have no content.
11:32:16 [Laura]
* Omit text alternatives and some users with disabilities have no content.
11:32:22 [Laura]
Without both a src and a text alternative the <img> element is incomplete.
11:32:24 [Joshue]
SF: Gez would make that arguement also.
11:32:27 [SCain]
+1 to MC conclusion too
11:32:36 [cyns]
+1 MC
11:32:46 [Joshue]
SF: I don't understand your point Chaals, should the validator warn?
11:33:32 [cyns]
how long is lunch?
11:33:34 [Sean]
modern images should support metadata what if the alternative is in the metadata
11:33:35 [SCain]
1 hr
11:34:03 [Joshue]
JS: Lets talk about this after lunch.
11:34:12 [chaals]
It is a problem not to have alt. But the problem is one of not knowing something. Telling lies is a more serious problem, so it needs to be clear that just inserting something to stop the warnings is worse than leaving it off.
11:34:26 [Joshue]
zakim, draft minutes
11:34:26 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'draft minutes', Joshue
11:34:31 [oedipus]
you can't keep people from lying -- except for me, of course!
11:34:38 [Joshue]
zakim, publish minutes
11:34:38 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'publish minutes', Joshue
11:34:39 [oedipus]
rrsagent, make minutes
11:34:39 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/04/06-html-a11y-minutes.html oedipus
11:34:40 [Zakim]
-Sean_Hayes
11:34:52 [Joshue]
:-)
11:34:55 [Zakim]
-Gregory_Rosmaita
11:35:50 [Zakim]
-Laura
12:05:28 [Zakim]
-FtF
12:30:54 [oeddie]
oeddie has joined #html-a11y
12:43:22 [Stevef]
Stevef has joined #html-a11y
12:43:33 [davidb]
davidb has joined #html-a11y
12:44:08 [richardschwerdtfe]
richardschwerdtfe has joined #html-a11y
12:44:15 [chaals]
chaals has joined #html-a11y
12:45:01 [MikeSmith]
Zakim, who's on the phone?
12:45:01 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Cynthia_Shelly
12:45:41 [Zakim]
+Sean_Hayes
12:46:09 [chaals]
http://www.toiletmuseum.com/lgpic.php?photo=mens/SofitelLoo2.jpg
12:46:16 [SCain]
SCain has joined #html-a11y
12:46:28 [MikeSmith]
oedipus_away, we are starting up again
12:46:37 [chaals]
s|http://www.toiletmuseum.com/lgpic.php?photo=mens/SofitelLoo2.jpg||
12:46:42 [Zakim]
+Laura
12:47:20 [Sean]
is the meeting room dialled in yet?
12:47:42 [SCain]
can anyone hear us?
12:47:48 [chaals]
zakim, who is here?
12:47:48 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Cynthia_Shelly, Sean_Hayes, Laura
12:47:49 [Zakim]
On IRC I see SCain, chaals, richardschwerdtfe, davidb, Stevef, oeddie, Laura, oedipus_away, cyns, kliehm, Sean, MikeSmith, eric_carlson, janina, Marco_Ranon, Zakim, RRSAgent,
12:47:52 [Zakim]
... Joshue, MichaelC, silvia, trackbot
12:47:52 [Zakim]
+Gregory_Rosmaita
12:48:09 [MichaelC]
zakim, code?
12:48:09 [Zakim]
the conference code is 2119 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), MichaelC
12:48:37 [Sean]
silence here...
12:48:39 [Zakim]
+??P6
12:48:50 [MichaelC]
zakim, ??P6 is FtF
12:48:50 [Zakim]
+FtF; got it
12:48:59 [MikeSmith]
-> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/ftf_2010-04 Agenda
12:49:02 [Joshue]
Scribe: Sally
12:49:13 [oeddie]
scribenick: SCain
12:49:45 [MichaelC]
zakim, FtF has Sally_Cain, Marco_Ranon, Steve_Faulkner, Eric_Carlson, Martin_Kliehm, Rich_Schwerdtfeger, Janina_Sajka, Joshue_O'Connor, Michael_Cooper, Mike_Smith, Charles_McCathieNevile
12:49:45 [Zakim]
+Sally_Cain, Marco_Ranon, Steve_Faulkner, Eric_Carlson, Martin_Kliehm, Rich_Schwerdtfeger, Janina_Sajka, Joshue_O'Connor, Michael_Cooper, Mike_Smith, Charles_McCathieNevile; got it
12:50:02 [MikeSmith]
MichaelC will scribe from 15:45
12:50:18 [SCain]
MC: Agenda has been updated
12:50:44 [oeddie]
fwiiw ported 2 pages from ESW wiki to HTML A11y TF wiki
12:50:46 [oeddie]
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/MediaSpecifcElements
12:50:51 [oeddie]
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/RoleAttribute
12:51:38 [Zakim]
-Cynthia_Shelly
12:51:45 [SCain]
Topic: Image heuristics
12:51:54 [MikeSmith]
-> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/66 HTML WG Issue 66
12:52:34 [MikeSmith]
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/66
12:52:44 [Zakim]
+??P2
12:52:45 [MikeSmith]
RRSAgent, make minutes
12:52:45 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/04/06-html-a11y-minutes.html MikeSmith
12:53:03 [MichaelC]
zakim, who's your daddy?
12:53:03 [Zakim]
Ralph is taking good care of me but you all are my family, MichaelC
12:53:12 [cyns]
P2 is me
12:53:23 [SCain]
MS: Issue 66 from HTML WG
12:53:23 [MichaelC]
zakim, ??P2 is Cynthia_Shelly
12:53:23 [Zakim]
+Cynthia_Shelly; got it
12:53:52 [cyns]
cyns has joined #html-a11y
12:54:03 [SCain]
JS: Do we want to accept any heuristically generated alt is part of the issue
12:54:08 [oeddie]
NO
12:54:12 [SCain]
MC: Do we want to rely on it?
12:54:19 [MikeSmith]
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImageHeuristics
12:54:23 [SCain]
MC: Change proposal posted
12:54:49 [SCain]
MS: Matts change proposal is to remove the paragraph in there from the spec
12:54:52 [MikeSmith]
-> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImageHeuristics Change Proposal: Remove Image Heuristics Paragraph from img Element Section
12:54:59 [SCain]
CMN: great idea
12:54:59 [oeddie]
GJR plus 1 to removing paragraph from spec
12:55:12 [SCain]
JS: I think we should make suggestions
12:55:23 [cyns]
+1 to removing paragraph
12:55:25 [SCain]
MS: We should see Hixies comments
12:55:39 [Laura]
ISSUE-66 Change Proposal: no change http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Mar/0194.html
12:56:06 [Laura]
Ian's Be more explicit about potential repair techniques http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Mar/0195.html
12:56:07 [oeddie]
matt: "This text should be stricken, because it gives the message that this is viable now, and a reasonable substitute for @alt. Neither is true. "
12:56:07 [SCain]
LC: There were two change proposals
12:56:40 [Laura]
Accessibility Change Proposal Status: http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Accessibility_Change_Proposal_Status
12:57:04 [oeddie]
matt positive effect 1: "Removing the text will remove the misconception that image analysis can currently be used to recover from images with missing text alternatives."
12:57:04 [oeddie]
matt positive effect 2: "Removing the text will remove the potential creation of an HTML language feature that is only offered by one provider, and is only available in the cloud."
12:57:21 [SCain]
MS: This is a rational statement
12:57:33 [SCain]
MS: We do want implementers to try to innovate in this area
12:57:39 [Sean]
Implementors of authoring tools can innovate too
12:57:44 [SCain]
MS: Even browser implementors
12:58:03 [SCain]
CMN: IS there any value having this text in the spec?
12:58:06 [oeddie]
GJR proposes that there is NO value in having any image heuristics verbiage in spec
12:58:27 [SCain]
MC: Should image heuristics become useful in the future then we might support it but not at present
12:58:39 [SCain]
JS: I am not sure if we should rest this with implementors
12:58:54 [SCain]
CMN: Propose we should vote for Matt Mays proposal
12:58:59 [SCain]
JS: I second that
12:59:19 [SCain]
MS: It would be useful that the people involved in the discussion have read Hixie's proposals
12:59:20 [oeddie]
yes, i have read hixie's counter-proposals and reject them
12:59:23 [SCain]
CMN: We have read it
12:59:25 [Joshue]
Josh: This proposal is touching on AI, and I don't think that the HTML 5 spec is the place for it.
13:00:06 [oeddie]
GJR plus 1 to accepting MattMay's proposal
13:00:07 [SCain]
CS: The counter proposal from Hixie does not address the core issue in MM proposal which is around expressing author intent.
13:00:22 [MikeSmith]
q?
13:00:28 [MikeSmith]
ack cyns
13:00:28 [Zakim]
cyns, you wanted to say that *anything* in HTML 5 about what the string in the alt attribute should contain is a slippery slope. don't go there.
13:00:33 [SCain]
CS: I can see a place for heuristics in an authoring tool but having it as a repair technique in a UA seems risky
13:00:38 [Stevef]
ack Stevef
13:00:47 [SCain]
MS: Propose we take these one at a time
13:01:19 [Laura]
Inclined to cut the section as it could very well be confusing to authors and used as a loophole not to write text alternatives.
13:01:33 [SCain]
MS: If this is removed are implementors not going to innovate
13:01:34 [oeddie]
if pigs fly in the future, we can support that too, but we don't have to state so now
13:01:39 [SCain]
JOC: Not at all
13:02:00 [SCain]
JOC: The domain that this solution comes out of might have nothing to do with the web
13:02:05 [SCain]
SC: I agree
13:02:34 [SCain]
CS: Not putting it in the spec will not cause anyone not to do it if they were going to do it
13:02:41 [Sean]
q+
13:02:52 [SCain]
CS: Filling in the attribute is not something the spec should be doing
13:02:57 [Laura]
If in fact anything is needed, I'd suggest simply using something like: "For User Agent advice on techniques for repairing missing content
13:02:57 [Laura]
please refer to the User Agent Accessibility Guidelines."
13:03:01 [MikeSmith]
q?
13:03:02 [SCain]
MS: It is a consistent position in that regard
13:03:14 [oeddie]
agree with Laura - point to UAAG
13:03:15 [SCain]
CS: It is about the value of alt
13:04:07 [SCain]
SH: Images do have other information in them. I would suggest we put a mechanism for taking the metadata from the image
13:04:18 [SCain]
MS: There are other places it could be done, that is one place
13:04:47 [oeddie]
sean, yes, extraction of meta-data should be highlighted -- canned images could have terse and long descriptors attached to them
13:05:00 [SCain]
CS: You could have AT that do image analysis
13:05:16 [oeddie]
the image analysis tools available i have found less than useful
13:05:17 [SCain]
CS: Does not neccesarily make sense for it to be part of the browser
13:05:34 [SCain]
MS: I ma hearing that this is not essential to the spec. Anyone object
13:05:51 [oeddie]
s/ma hearing/am hearing/
13:05:54 [SCain]
MS: We should look at a second proposal
13:06:17 [oeddie]
we should let Matt speak for Matt
13:06:18 [SCain]
MS: So adding more text...
13:06:54 [SCain]
CMN: I would choose matts proposal over Hixies
13:07:18 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/04/06-html-a11y-minutes.html oeddie
13:07:21 [SCain]
MK: Does it have any copyright if it is written in a spec, Google cannot claim copyright
13:07:28 [SCain]
MS: no issue around this
13:07:36 [SCain]
MC: This is defining use cases
13:07:48 [SCain]
EC: Does not make any difference if it is in a spec or not
13:08:05 [SCain]
MS: We need to have a statement of reason why
13:08:32 [SCain]
MC: This is a list of use cases that does not belong in a spec but a requirements document.
13:09:11 [SCain]
SF: They do not need this text to be told
13:09:28 [SCain]
MS: Spec is already really big and this is meant to be a fucntional spec for implementors.
13:09:53 [SCain]
MS: This guidance is not essential to doing that. This is a reasonable stance to argue. That this is not the proper place for this
13:10:18 [SCain]
CS: Still better not to touch on it at all. Image analysis not html at all
13:10:29 [oeddie]
strong plus 1 to cyns
13:10:46 [MichaelC]
We would not normally take time to object that this exists even though it goes beyond what a spec needs to provide, but we are concerned that it could mislead authors into believing they can rely on this when the current state of technology does not support that
13:10:47 [oeddie]
plus 1 to supporting MM's proposal full stop
13:10:53 [SCain]
RESOLUTION: To support Matt May's change proposal
13:10:59 [oeddie]
plus 1
13:11:32 [SCain]
Topic: Table Headers
13:11:50 [MikeSmith]
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Table_Headers
13:11:55 [SCain]
MC: I think we wanted to review and think that we are OK with this
13:12:11 [MikeSmith]
-> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Table_Headers Accessibility of Table Header Structure
13:12:46 [SCain]
MC: various bugs
13:13:29 [SCain]
MC: Bug 8449
13:13:59 [cyns]
link please?
13:14:16 [Marco_Ranon]
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8449
13:14:34 [SCain]
MC: Shelly has a change proposal for this
13:14:52 [SCain]
MC: When were we going to look at that?
13:15:07 [SCain]
JS: We were going to look at the ones that were in scope
13:15:33 [SCain]
JS: We had strong opinons on pf call
13:16:01 [SCain]
MC: This is moved new topics
13:16:20 [SCain]
MC: Table headers done?
13:16:40 [SCain]
LC: The test suite and this has gone to the other task force
13:17:27 [SCain]
MC: A joint call with the testing task force at some point would be good and MS, JS and I have discussed this
13:17:31 [SCain]
LC: Good idea
13:18:15 [SCain]
JS: Action that this comes up in a managerial discussion
13:18:47 [SCain]
MS: On table headers, do we have an open issue for this in the WG now? Are any of the related issues open?
13:19:09 [MichaelC]
action: cooper to organize joint discussion of testing task force and html a11y task force
13:19:10 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-22 - Organize joint discussion of testing task force and html a11y task force [on Michael Cooper - due 2010-04-13].
13:19:19 [SCain]
MS: We are fine, they are closed
13:19:38 [kliehm]
kliehm has joined #html-a11y
13:19:39 [SCain]
Topic: Resolved and closed bugs
13:20:11 [MikeSmith]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Apr/0046.html
13:20:22 [MikeSmith]
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Apr/0046.html Weekly Resolved & Rejected Bugs Report
13:20:54 [SCain]
LC: This is what happened last week
13:21:56 [SCain]
MC: Will come back to Bu 8171 implement text alternatives proposal
13:22:24 [SCain]
LC: Bug 8716 - this is related to the change proposal
13:22:51 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/04/06-html-a11y-minutes.html oeddie
13:22:54 [SCain]
MS: Why do we need both bug and change proposal
13:23:05 [SCain]
LC: I was asked to by the chair
13:23:39 [SCain]
LC: Most have change proposals
13:24:22 [SCain]
MS: We can deal with the bugs by talking to maciej
13:25:12 [SCain]
MS: Change proposals that are related to issues
13:26:54 [Laura]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Mar/0009.html
13:27:11 [Laura]
Help with text alternative bugs related to HTML5 Change Proposal: "Replace img Guidance for Conformance Checkers"
13:27:18 [chaals]
[rehash of how process works in the HTML group]
13:28:12 [SCain]
JS: There is a W3C process will be honoured
13:29:09 [SCain]
MS: We have three experienced chairs who are managing the group and we are in a good place for getting things done.
13:29:54 [SCain]
MS: I think we should look at whether there is anything here that requires action
13:30:56 [chaals]
chaals has joined #html-a11y
13:31:15 [SCain]
MS: We will go through the bug list tomorrow around this time
13:32:42 [SCain]
MS: Drag and drop tomorrow
13:32:51 [SCain]
Topic: Canvas
13:33:07 [SCain]
MS: No Nav is on the chairs radar now
13:33:22 [SCain]
RS: It is more of a clarification for the spec
13:33:29 [cyns]
is there a link to the proposal?
13:34:11 [oeddie]
http://www.w3.org/wai/pf/html/wiki/Canvas
13:34:53 [SCain]
MS: Other question is what the objections to it are?
13:34:54 [oeddie]
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Canvas/Proposals
13:35:06 [SCain]
SF: Ian says it is not needed and won't be used
13:35:15 [oeddie]
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Canvas_Change_Proposal_Action_165
13:35:26 [SCain]
SF: Why do we need the attribute he is saying
13:35:51 [oeddie]
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/canvasaccessibility
13:35:51 [SCain]
RS: We have info to the opposite, the content is in the navigation
13:36:00 [oeddie]
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/Map4NotAdom
13:36:09 [Stevef]
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/canvasaccessibilitynonav
13:36:15 [SCain]
RS: I do not think the point is valid
13:36:42 [SCain]
MS: Ian is unlikely to make the change to the spec without anything from the chairs
13:36:57 [SCain]
MS: I can try to talk to chairs about it
13:37:16 [MikeSmith]
q?
13:37:20 [chaals]
q+
13:37:38 [Sean]
q-
13:37:42 [SCain]
SF: There are other changes within the spec text that are equally important. It is specific about what a browser needs to do to implement it
13:37:48 [MikeSmith]
ack chaals
13:38:02 [SCain]
CMN: I disagree with Hixie and RS
13:38:14 [SCain]
CMN: My proposal is in theree
13:38:16 [oeddie]
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/Map4NotAdom
13:38:24 [Stevef]
modified spec text for nonav http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/misc/canvas/canvas-nonav.html
13:39:19 [oeddie]
steveF, added link to nonav change proposal to http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Canvas/Proposals#Canvas_Change_Proposals
13:39:33 [SCain]
CMN: <outlining proposal>
13:39:46 [MikeSmith]
q?
13:39:53 [Stevef]
Bug 9061 - allow image maps on the canvas element. http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9061
13:39:58 [SCain]
JS: We were agreeable to supporting that in addition to Rich's
13:40:12 [SCain]
CMN: The two things are not mutally exclusive.
13:41:11 [SCain]
CMN: I have put it as a change proposal to replace nonav proposal
13:41:17 [SCain]
SF: More than that though?
13:41:34 [MikeSmith]
q?
13:41:48 [SCain]
CMN: There is the spec, rich's proposal which is an improvement and I think my proposal is an improvement too
13:42:15 [SCain]
SF: focus rectangle and caret
13:42:33 [chaals]
s/an improvement too/a better (alternative) improvement/
13:42:35 [SCain]
RS: I refer to fallback content as this is in the spec, but I would have to make some changes for imagemap
13:42:47 [oeddie]
focus rectangle and caret: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/canvasaccessibility
13:43:19 [oeddie]
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Canvas/Proposals#Canvas_Change_Proposals
13:43:19 [SCain]
SF: There is another proposal - focus rectange and caret
13:43:46 [SCain]
RS: The mac when you are selecting text does not move the caret.
13:44:17 [SCain]
RS: Writing it up to say you have to track the last selected position or caret to drive focus. Then it will work on mac and windows
13:44:56 [SCain]
RS: Blink rate - issue around seizures
13:45:46 [SCain]
RS: I will put something in there around a typical blink rate.
13:46:37 [SCain]
RS: I have to work on focus rectangle. You also have aria -active descendant.
13:46:59 [SCain]
SF: The status is that you are updating it
13:47:09 [SCain]
RS: It will go to the canvas group then TF
13:47:28 [SCain]
MS: We do need to get moving on this
13:47:48 [oeddie]
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Canvas/Meetings
13:47:59 [SCain]
JS: How do we move forward between Chaals and Rich?
13:48:14 [oeddie]
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Canvas/Meetings/Minutes
13:48:24 [SCain]
MS: Blink rate is more recent?
13:48:29 [SCain]
RS: It is
13:49:02 [oeddie]
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/AddedElementCanvas
13:49:33 [SCain]
CMN: Blink rate not connected to the other two proposals
13:49:46 [SCain]
MS: If it could be separated that would be good
13:50:23 [SCain]
MS: We have to prioritise
13:50:40 [SCain]
JS: Drag and drop is a major issue
13:51:02 [SCain]
MS: We need to get someone else to pick up drag and drop
13:51:23 [oeddie]
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/74
13:51:46 [oeddie]
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Canvas/Meetings
13:51:47 [SCain]
RS: I want to submit it to the canvas group for discussion next week while I am on discussion
13:51:58 [SCain]
MS: Can you send it to the task force group too
13:52:11 [SCain]
SF: I will shepherd it if I can
13:52:22 [Sean]
In the <map> proposal. Should <area> support the role attribute http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/RoleAttribute ?
13:52:38 [chaals]
[Sean, yes]
13:53:07 [oeddie]
[GJR agrees with sean that AREA should support the role attribute]
13:53:09 [Sean]
q+ to ask In the <map> proposal. Should <area> support the role attribute http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/RoleAttribute ?
13:53:14 [SCain]
MS: We need implementor feedback on it
13:54:18 [oeddie]
?
13:54:19 [oeddie]
q?
13:54:22 [SCain]
MS: No action on focus ring part for now and we can look at proposal next week
13:55:24 [oeddie]
ack sean
13:55:24 [Zakim]
Sean, you wanted to ask In the <map> proposal. Should <area> support the role attribute http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/RoleAttribute ?
13:55:43 [MikeSmith]
q?
13:56:37 [oeddie]
plus 1 that AREA should support the role attribute
13:56:51 [cyns]
+1
13:57:09 [SCain]
SH: should <area> support the role attribute
13:57:35 [SCain]
RS: We will have to change the map proposal in html5
13:57:53 [SCain]
CMN: I can't find any implementation that matches the html5 version
13:58:21 [SCain]
CMN: Going back to the html4 model does not seem like a big cost as it matches reality
13:58:36 [SCain]
CMN: Started working on the edits, but I need to clean up the proposal
13:59:08 [SCain]
RS: Drag and drop on an image map with elements, does that impact anything? These are the things we have to think about
13:59:55 [SCain]
SF: As far as <area> is concerned. Currently in spec you can't have roles except link role and I think that needs to change. It needs to change if we are going to allow area to be used on canvas
14:00:39 [SCain]
EC: Canvas used for graphs anywhere there is a dynamic image.
14:00:49 [SCain]
CMN: We have used it to render UI controls
14:01:05 [SCain]
MK: Daily motion used it
14:01:38 [SCain]
CMN: They use canvas to reduce the overhead
14:01:53 [MikeSmith]
q?
14:02:22 [SCain]
MS: We can say that we want a solution for this and will not object to any reasonable proposals that are put forward.
14:02:52 [kliehm]
I remember that the video controls in this example are rendered with SVG, so this is a use case to be expected in canvas, too: http://www.dailymotion.com/openvideodemo
14:02:52 [Stevef]
q+ Bug 9061 - allow image maps on the canvas element. http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9061
14:03:05 [Stevef]
q+
14:03:07 [SCain]
MS: There are different levels for different proposals but we can say what looks promising and we will not object to them for further discussion in the working group
14:03:20 [chaals]
[chaals steps out]
14:03:30 [SCain]
JS: Do we need chaals edits to be done?
14:03:34 [SCain]
CMN: We do
14:04:20 [SCain]
MS: If you have time to review CMN proposal that would be good
14:04:30 [SCain]
RS: That would be really hard because of time
14:05:06 [SCain]
SF: We don't have imagemap support on canvas and I have raised an issue in tracker
14:05:15 [MikeSmith]
oedipus, yeah, back in 10 minutes
14:05:24 [Zakim]
-Gregory_Rosmaita
14:05:34 [Zakim]
-Sean_Hayes
14:06:19 [Zakim]
-Laura
14:21:39 [MikeSmith]
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/ftf_2010-04#agenda
14:21:57 [Zakim]
+Gregory_Rosmaita
14:21:58 [cyns]
cyns has joined #html-a11y
14:22:05 [SCain]
MS: There is some work for individuals to do
14:22:11 [SCain]
SF: If I can be of help I will be
14:22:13 [Zakim]
+Laura
14:22:39 [oedipus]
sean, we are back
14:22:48 [Zakim]
+Sean_Hayes
14:23:53 [chaals]
scribenick: chaals
14:23:58 [Stevef]
Bug 9061 - allow image maps on the canvas element. http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9061
14:24:06 [chaals]
SF: To have imagemap work on canvas, needs to be in the spec.
14:24:15 [chaals]
Put in a bug for that, editor rejected it.
14:24:24 [chaals]
s/Put/SF: Put/
14:24:48 [chaals]
... so I raised an issue.
14:25:00 [chaals]
... Maciej doesn't think Webkit would object.
14:25:49 [MikeSmith]
-> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/105 allow image maps on the canvas element
14:26:09 [SCain]
scribenick: SCain
14:26:46 [SCain]
MS: There is nothing more from TF we need to do on that
14:26:55 [SCain]
SF: We could say we support the idea
14:28:12 [SCain]
JS: You could see what response that gets
14:28:14 [MikeSmith]
s/ allow image maps/HTML WG tracker issue 105: allow image maps/
14:28:18 [SCain]
CMN: Works in the browsers
14:28:57 [SCain]
SF: If someone puts areamap on top of canvas the author intended to do that
14:29:49 [SCain]
RS: You have to be explicit - if we allow it to be on there it should override it
14:29:59 [SCain]
RS: Should we create two proposals?
14:30:05 [SCain]
CMN: That is the situation now
14:30:09 [MikeSmith]
RRSAgent, make minutes
14:30:09 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/04/06-html-a11y-minutes.html MikeSmith
14:30:48 [SCain]
SF: I submitted an issue and that is where it is now, to allow to use imagemaps on canvas
14:30:58 [SCain]
MS: So we can be prepared with a proposal
14:30:59 [MichaelC]
chair: Janina_Sajka, Mike_Smith
14:31:05 [MichaelC]
zakim, list attendees
14:31:05 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been Gregory_Rosmaita, Sally_Cain, Marco_Ranon, Eric_Carlson, Rich_Schwerdtfeger, Janina_Sajka, Joshue_O'Connor, Michael_Cooper, Mike_Smith,
14:31:09 [Zakim]
... Charles_McCathieNevile, Steve_Faulkner, Cynthia_Shelly, Martin_Kliehm, Sean_Hayes, Laura
14:31:11 [SCain]
SF: Will try and do it before thurs
14:31:28 [SCain]
RS: Keyboard navigation information should be in there
14:32:25 [SCain]
Action Steve to write proposal for imagemaps on canvas
14:32:25 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-23 - Write proposal for imagemaps on canvas [on Steve Faulkner - due 2010-04-13].
14:32:54 [SCain]
JOC: Are imagemaps key to making accessible canvas fly?
14:33:31 [SCain]
CMN: Because we know them and recommend to authors that they should do that then they will understand this
14:33:42 [SCain]
RS: Will have to do the same thing in canvas
14:34:16 [SCain]
CMN:You get keyboard nav, you get focus and people know imagemaps
14:35:03 [SCain]
RS: There no silver bullet
14:35:09 [SCain]
SF: But is a good basis
14:35:46 [Joshue]
Josh: We still don't know how native HTML 5 semantics will play when embedded within <canvas> content.
14:35:47 [SCain]
RS: I think having two cases available will be good
14:36:53 [SCain]
RS: We have to submit a proposal as far as process goes
14:37:02 [SCain]
MS: Yes as Ian has rejected a bug
14:38:49 [SCain]
MS: Chairs look at the objections and have a discussion and send an email to Ian to say what should happen
14:39:23 [SCain]
MS: If chairs make the evaluation that it should be added then they make a specific request that it should be added to Ian.
14:40:52 [SCain]
MS: I don't think we need to worry about this one too much
14:41:09 [SCain]
MS: I will bring up NoNav with the chairs
14:42:01 [SCain]
MS: We have an obligation to get to last call within a reasonable amount of time. My role is to try to get us to last call sooner rather than later.
14:42:10 [SCain]
MS: We need clear milestones
14:42:54 [SCain]
MS: Working group is out of charter at the end of this year and we need to discuss what the new charter should say.
14:43:47 [Joshue]
Joshue has joined #html-a11y
14:43:56 [SCain]
MS: Biggest set of issues for last call are the issues in the task force that we need to get done. We all need to work with a greater sense of urgency.
14:44:41 [SCain]
MS: Change proposals do not have to be perfect. We can always make refinements to them.
14:45:32 [SCain]
JS: There is no call on Thursday
14:45:43 [MikeSmith]
q?
14:46:16 [Stevef]
ack Stevef
14:46:29 [SCain]
MK: People are still going to produce things we haven't thought of.
14:46:54 [SCain]
MS: I think Bespin does not seem to have a lot of uptake so far
14:47:05 [SCain]
MK: Mentioned it on the google group
14:47:21 [SCain]
SF: I think it was an example of the sort of things people might do
14:48:53 [Sean]
OK by me
14:49:08 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/04/06-html-a11y-minutes.html oedipus
14:49:50 [kliehm]
Bespin will be used as editor for Mozilla Raindrop, but might not rely on Canvas in the future http://groups.google.com/group/bespin/browse_thread/thread/6595a8e227bf3987
14:50:23 [MichaelC]
topic: Title attribute
14:50:37 [MichaelC]
-> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/80 Tracker Issue 80
14:50:50 [oedipus]
q+ to say "failure" of "title" is due to lack of support by ATs especially screen readers; @title - the problem isn't the spec, it is the implementation
14:50:59 [oedipus]
i should be able to toggle between hyperlink text, alt, and title through direct query or as a means of listing links
14:50:59 [oedipus]
@title is VALUABLE - it provides a "verb" to @alt's "noun"
14:51:15 [chaals]
q+ to agree with Steve
14:51:30 [MichaelC]
sf: title attribute is a good substitute for alt
14:51:46 [MichaelC]
it's not displayed by default visually
14:51:47 [cyns]
q+ to say title is the accDescription, alt is the accName. Put another way, title is the tooltip, alt is the name
14:51:51 [chaals]
s/is a/is not a/
14:51:51 [MichaelC]
it's not device dependent
14:51:52 [oedipus]
@title is NOT a substitute for @alt -- @alt is a noun @title is a verb
14:52:36 [MichaelC]
spec says you should not display title in the same way alt is displayed
14:52:38 [oedipus]
@title serves a different purpose from @alt
14:52:49 [oedipus]
zakim, mute me
14:52:49 [Zakim]
sorry, oedipus, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
14:52:54 [oedipus]
zakim, mute Gregory_Rosmaita
14:52:54 [Zakim]
Gregory_Rosmaita should now be muted
14:53:05 [MichaelC]
s/dependent/independent/
14:53:30 [MichaelC]
joc: does title have any use?
14:53:52 [oedipus]
ToolTip is an implementation decision, not an inherent means of displaying content of @title
14:53:56 [MichaelC]
sf: tooltips, labeling form controls
14:54:28 [MichaelC]
especially in tables where a visual label comes from headers, but need individual labels for controls
14:55:04 [oedipus]
zakim, unmute Gregory_Rosmaita
14:55:04 [Zakim]
Gregory_Rosmaita should no longer be muted
14:55:07 [oedipus]
q?
14:55:16 [MichaelC]
question is whether title should be included in the algorithm for text alternatives
14:55:18 [MichaelC]
q+
14:55:25 [MichaelC]
the change proposal says no
14:55:30 [MichaelC]
@@URL to change proposal
14:55:44 [MichaelC]
cs: title maps to a description
14:55:54 [MichaelC]
isn't meant to be name for an object
14:56:04 [MichaelC]
question of whether title should be conforming: no
14:56:12 [MichaelC]
whether it should be used if provided: maybe
14:56:43 [MichaelC]
sf: AT can use it
14:57:01 [MichaelC]
but the algorithm covers other types of user agents too
14:57:04 [MikeSmith]
q?
14:57:19 [cyns]
ack me
14:57:19 [Zakim]
cyns, you wanted to say title is the accDescription, alt is the accName. Put another way, title is the tooltip, alt is the name
14:59:08 [MichaelC]
q+ to say the ARIA accessible name algorithm takes account of title
14:59:38 [MichaelC]
sf: e.g.. user using keyboard can't access title
14:59:44 [chaals]
ack oedipus
14:59:44 [Zakim]
oedipus, you wanted to say "failure" of "title" is due to lack of support by ATs especially screen readers; @title - the problem isn't the spec, it is the implementation
14:59:44 [MikeSmith]
ack oedipus
14:59:49 [MichaelC]
joc: shouldn't it be an element?
14:59:52 [Stevef]
Modify img element section Change Proposal http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20091203
15:00:36 [MichaelC]
gr: AT haven't provided the functionality on title that they could
15:00:40 [oedipus]
ack me
15:00:43 [Laura]
title is advisory
15:00:44 [MichaelC]
e.g., ability to sort on lists ofit
15:00:49 [MichaelC]
s/ofit/of it/
15:00:55 [MichaelC]
sf: sounds like we're all in agreement
15:00:56 [Joshue]
+q
15:01:04 [oedipus]
title could be displayed in status bar onFocus
15:01:08 [chaals]
ack me
15:01:08 [Zakim]
chaals, you wanted to agree with Steve
15:01:31 [MichaelC]
proposing to remove title from text alternatives
15:01:46 [MichaelC]
cmn: user agents should enable access for keyboard users
15:02:01 [MichaelC]
though that is an implementation detail, not a spec issue
15:02:03 [oedipus]
yes, @title is supplemental info, not textual alternative - @title is global, @alt is not
15:02:22 [MichaelC]
sf: Windows desktop does do an accessible implementation of tooltip
15:02:24 [MichaelC]
ack me
15:02:24 [Zakim]
MichaelC, you wanted to say the ARIA accessible name algorithm takes account of title
15:02:40 [MikeSmith]
scribe: MikeSmith
15:02:50 [Joshue]
MC: You propose removing title from the text alternative computation?
15:03:10 [MikeSmith]
Joshue, np
15:03:16 [MikeSmith]
scribe: MichaelC
15:03:23 [MichaelC]
mc: ARIA does include title as part of its text equivalent computation
15:03:28 [MichaelC]
rs: as a last resort
15:03:37 [MichaelC]
mc: do we want to harmonize these approaches?
15:04:15 [MichaelC]
sf: because title is last resort, we are just saying that it shouldn't be a resort from document conformance perspective
15:04:22 [Marco_Ranon]
+q
15:04:28 [MichaelC]
joc: agree title shouldn't conform when alt present
15:04:31 [MichaelC]
ack j
15:04:48 [MichaelC]
but there are various mechanisms to describe images
15:04:53 [MichaelC]
what is purpose of title?
15:05:09 [MichaelC]
useful for tooltips, labeling form controls
15:05:13 [MichaelC]
but what is its use on images
15:05:20 [MichaelC]
what is future of title attribute in HTML?
15:05:30 [MichaelC]
ms: for images, or as global attribute?
15:05:38 [MikeSmith]
-> http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/dom.html#the-title-attribute HTML5 spec on the title attribute
15:05:39 [MikeSmith]
http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/dom.html#the-title-attribute
15:05:44 [oedipus]
<img src="opera.png" alt="Download Opera" title="download Opera for Platform x (18.8 MB)">
15:05:44 [MichaelC]
rs: it's useful for the generic use case
15:05:52 [MichaelC]
cs: it's a secondary description or tip
15:06:32 [MichaelC]
mc: so title without alt is a secondary description without a primary description
15:06:32 [oedipus]
complementary to use an ARIA term
15:06:33 [MichaelC]
ack m
15:06:51 [MichaelC]
mr: RNIB always advises against title because it's not always exposed
15:07:06 [MichaelC]
and screen magnifier can be problematic if tooltip pops up and occludes content
15:07:17 [MichaelC]
but there are recommended places such as forms
15:07:24 [Laura]
The title attribute is used in addition to the alt attribute.
15:07:30 [MichaelC]
don't register a failure when used, though recommend a different approach
15:07:56 [oedipus]
what about backwards compatibility, rich?
15:07:56 [cyns]
q+
15:08:06 [Sean]
maybe we should use title in its sense for a work of art
15:08:08 [MichaelC]
rs: perhaps humourously, proposing dumping alt altogether in favour of aria-label
15:08:10 [Laura]
The title attribute can be used to add advisory information or to add flavor.
15:08:21 [MichaelC]
cmn: or reverse, dump aria-label in favour of tile
15:08:26 [SCain]
Backwards compatibility is a good point gregory
15:08:33 [MichaelC]
s/tile/title/
15:09:04 [MichaelC]
sf: aria-label doesn't have the tooltip behaviour
15:09:20 [cyns]
q+ to say don't get rid of alt because of back compat both for existing content and because it's the one, single, bit of accessibilty technique that most web devs know
15:09:34 [oedipus]
state "title is not intended to invoke a specific behavior, for example, exposition in a tooltip. title content could as easily be conveyed to the user via the status line"
15:09:35 [MichaelC]
rs: our goal is to transition people to new way on doing things
15:09:58 [cyns]
oedipus, I disagree. behavior needs to be standardized.
15:10:01 [MichaelC]
continuing to support alt because we can't just throw aria-labelledby in place
15:10:31 [oedipus]
cyns, my argument is that tooltip exposition (or exposition of title) should be a USER preference
15:10:41 [MikeSmith]
as far as the title attribute in other markup cases, note that spec defines some specific semantics for the title attribute when it's used with the abbr element, input elements with the pattern attribute, the link element, and the meter element
15:10:58 [oedipus]
good points, mTMs
15:11:28 [MichaelC]
ec: could mark title obsoleted but conforming, which means you can use it but don't count on it appearing in future versions of spec
15:11:33 [cyns]
oedipus, maybe, but DEFAULT behavior needs to be standardized. Otherwise people will roll their own, and you won't be change their behavior
15:11:39 [MichaelC]
as opposed to deprecated which means it still works but you shouldn't use
15:11:43 [oedipus]
cyns, agreed
15:11:44 [Sean]
can we state to use aria until media metadata is reliable
15:11:46 [MichaelC]
rs: let's do this with title and alt
15:11:51 [MikeSmith]
q?
15:12:04 [chaals]
q+
15:12:23 [MichaelC]
sf: currently it's accepted that ARIA is an AT annotation
15:12:44 [oedipus]
sean, aria isn't native to HTML even if it is shoe-horned in -- it is not meant to be hard-coded
15:12:49 [MichaelC]
to say you should use it by preference, it won't be as accepted
15:12:58 [MichaelC]
now mainstream UA consumes ARIA, not just AT
15:13:10 [cyns]
I have to leave at half past
15:13:28 [MichaelC]
rs: how many people load pages with images turned off?
15:13:28 [Sean]
Is aria really not native to HTML?
15:13:31 [MichaelC]
<lots of people raise hands>
15:13:44 [MichaelC]
cmn: lots of places still have significant cost to image download
15:13:49 [MichaelC]
so turn off
15:13:51 [MikeSmith]
cyns, will get to the queue momentarily
15:13:55 [oedipus]
sean, ARIA is for more than HTML - it is a free-standing bridging technology, not a be-all solution
15:14:16 [MichaelC]
rs: @@
15:14:22 [Sean]
I understand that, but isnt it being adopted into HTML. I thought Janina said that
15:14:30 [MichaelC]
cmn: ARIA says it's just for AT, but that should be stripped out of the spec
15:14:56 [oedipus]
sean, that is a matter of contention -- if aria is hard-coded into HTML5 with no extensibility or namespacing, then i will formally object to hard-coding ARIA in HTML5
15:15:07 [Sean]
ok
15:15:14 [MichaelC]
even so, relying on ARIA won't get us off the hook
15:15:25 [oedipus]
mc, right -- that's the bigger point
15:15:30 [MikeSmith]
cyns, after Rich completes this thought
15:15:36 [Sean]
oedipus, time to introduce your <legend> element?
15:15:50 [MichaelC]
rs: we talked about expanding aria-describedby to fill full longdesc use case
15:15:58 [Joshue]
oedipus is a <legend> lol
15:16:09 [oedipus]
sean, perhaps, if you want to do it, i'm burnt out
15:16:10 [chaals]
q+
15:16:16 [SCain]
+1 to planning towards consistency
15:16:28 [MichaelC]
doing same with title and alt makes sense as a paralellel engineering
15:16:35 [oedipus]
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/MediaSpecificElements
15:16:44 [MikeSmith]
q?
15:16:45 [oedipus]
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Talk:MediaSpecificElements
15:16:49 [MikeSmith]
ack cyns
15:16:50 [Zakim]
cyns, you wanted to say don't get rid of alt because of back compat both for existing content and because it's the one, single, bit of accessibilty technique that most web devs
15:16:53 [MichaelC]
ms: appears to make sense; need to test that proposal with entire task force
15:16:54 [Zakim]
... know
15:17:03 [MichaelC]
cs: important not to take out native attributes and replace with ARIA
15:17:22 [MichaelC]
these are among the few accessibility attributes developers know abut
15:17:26 [MichaelC]
s/abut/about/
15:17:37 [MichaelC]
removing those would be a dangerous step
15:17:46 [chaals]
s/these are among the few/alt is about the only/
15:17:49 [MichaelC]
rs: but the attributes would still exist for developers
15:17:55 [MichaelC]
for now
15:18:02 [MichaelC]
give time to learn about the new approaches
15:18:33 [MichaelC]
cs: don't think we should deprecate native attributes at all
15:18:38 [MichaelC]
ARIA is a bridge
15:18:57 [MichaelC]
developers who understand ARIA are at the top of the developer food change
15:19:04 [MichaelC]
those at the bottom have barely heard of alt
15:19:11 [MichaelC]
rs: but ARIA is declarative markup
15:19:19 [MichaelC]
needs to be used on custom controls
15:19:32 [Sean]
ARIA plankton
15:19:33 [MichaelC]
no matter how many standard controls we have, there will be custom controls
15:19:40 [MichaelC]
ARIA allows those to be accessible
15:19:52 [MichaelC]
cs: img is a standard control
15:20:03 [oedipus]
q?
15:20:04 [MichaelC]
and alt is the standard approach for that
15:20:17 [MichaelC]
ARIA doesn't go away but shouldn't supplant that standard behaviour
15:20:23 [MichaelC]
q+
15:20:28 [MichaelC]
joc: agree
15:20:31 [MichaelC]
ack c
15:20:56 [MichaelC]
cmn: design principle of using aria-label instead of alt makes sense
15:21:16 [MichaelC]
agree that this isn't the right time though to make such a big replacement
15:21:17 [MikeSmith]
q+
15:21:31 [MichaelC]
at least not in the HTML 5 time frame
15:21:35 [MichaelC]
maybe later
15:22:10 [MichaelC]
though ARIA could state more about its expected lifetime
15:22:45 [MichaelC]
rs: so how to do go gracefully go into standard way of enablement?
15:23:01 [MichaelC]
cmn: 1) scribe missed
15:23:12 [MichaelC]
2) get ARIA architecture really solid, implement the takeover
15:23:15 [oedipus]
can't one use aria-labelledby and aria-label to connect a DT to its child DDs? (yes, i know there is an implicit binding, but aria makes it explicit)
15:23:27 [MichaelC]
then in HTML 6 the takeover is ready to plug into place
15:23:30 [MikeSmith]
q?
15:23:31 [MichaelC]
with all the cool examples
15:23:38 [Zakim]
-Cynthia_Shelly
15:23:49 [Sean]
what does aria-label bring that could not be added to the alt attribute?
15:23:51 [MichaelC]
rs: we need to state intent over time
15:23:56 [MichaelC]
cmn: but you state that over time
15:24:02 [MichaelC]
arguing now will create confusion
15:24:04 [MichaelC]
ack me
15:24:25 [chaals]
MC: Agree.
15:24:34 [chaals]
... think ARIA should be a bridging technology.
15:24:42 [oedipus]
sean, aria-label can include "rich text" -- alt is just a plain text string
15:24:46 [chaals]
s/Agree/Agree with Chaals and Josh/
15:25:12 [Sean]
but its still an attribute right? in which case that could be added to alt
15:25:14 [chaals]
... feel wierd about relying on aria attributes instead of native attributes, but seeing a phase-in plan makes it feel less troubling
15:25:33 [chaals]
ack MikeSmith
15:25:39 [MichaelC]
scribe: MichaelC
15:25:58 [MichaelC]
rs: there is probably more ARIA support by authors now than there is for HTML 5
15:25:59 [oedipus]
aria-label in a SPAN can contain rich markup
15:26:03 [cyns]
I still think it's the wrong direction. Aria is for cases where native elements and attributes fall short. It should NOT be used to replace existing ones.
15:26:11 [cyns]
(and I lost my phone connection)
15:26:13 [oedipus]
i agree with cyns
15:26:19 [MichaelC]
ms: we could probably get agreement about ARIA support in general
15:26:32 [MichaelC]
don't think we could get agreement on making alt obsolete but conforming
15:26:54 [MichaelC]
because those features, it has been argued, are widely misused
15:27:03 [MichaelC]
s/alt/alt and longdesc/
15:27:13 [oedipus]
sean, <span id="label1">This is <span lang="fr">de riguer</span></span>
15:27:33 [MichaelC]
we don't want validators issuing warnings about the existence of alt on an element
15:27:43 [Laura]
aria-labelledby is an option in the change proposal: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20090126
15:27:58 [MichaelC]
spec should clarify stance on aria-labelledby, aria-label, etc. in general
15:28:07 [chaals]
[Laura, yup. As far as I can tell, that's not controversial, either]
15:28:10 [MichaelC]
should change the statement that they are accessibility-only features
15:28:23 [oedipus]
aria-labelledby WITHOUT @alt should be an error
15:28:23 [Sean]
aria-label (property) Defines a string value that labels the current element when included as an attribute of the current element
15:28:31 [MichaelC]
sf: the spec currently says they are annotations for AT
15:29:17 [oedipus]
@alt and aria-label content should be the same, only with aria-label one can use markup
15:29:22 [MikeSmith]
q?
15:29:30 [MichaelC]
<little bit of discussion>
15:29:39 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/04/06-html-a11y-minutes.html oedipus
15:29:49 [MichaelC]
joc: I always thought ARIA would become a native part of HTML 5
15:29:55 [MichaelC]
rs: would object to entire spec if it didn't
15:30:00 [oedipus]
if ARIA without extensibility and namespacing is added to HTML5 i will formally object
15:30:10 [MichaelC]
sf: it's clear that it's meant to, just that it says it's only for AT
15:30:24 [oedipus]
ARIA cannot be hard-coded into HTML5 -- it defeats the purpose of ARIA
15:30:25 [MichaelC]
ms: we just need to expand that it's core and not just for AT
15:33:11 [oedipus]
well stated, chaals
15:33:34 [MichaelC]
RESOLUTION: we do not accept @title as a substitute for @alt, in respect to document conformance
15:35:33 [MichaelC]
RESOLUTION: support the change proposal at http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20091203
15:35:54 [oedipus]
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/80
15:36:24 [Zakim]
-Laura
15:36:56 [chaals]
s/well stated, chaals//
15:37:19 [Stevef]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2010Mar/0031.html
15:37:28 [Joshue]
Scribe: Joshue
15:37:40 [Joshue]
SF: Reads change proposal.
15:37:43 [Zakim]
+Laura
15:37:54 [Joshue]
MS: Well we disagree with that.
15:38:06 [Joshue]
SF: I thought there was a bar!
15:38:21 [Joshue]
Chaals: That depends on who rights it.
15:38:29 [Joshue]
SF: Its not great.
15:38:34 [Joshue]
MS: It is short
15:38:54 [Joshue]
MS: We have a clear agreement from the TF and we support SFs change proposal.
15:39:15 [Joshue]
MS: We need to look at what to do on the spec language that says the ARIA markup is only for a11y. Steve?
15:39:32 [chaals]
s/Chaals: That depends on who rights it.//
15:39:45 [Joshue]
ACTION: SteveF to raise bug on ARIA being restricted to a11y
15:39:45 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - SteveF
15:39:59 [Joshue]
ACTION: Stevef to raise bug on ARIA being restricted to a11y
15:39:59 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - Stevef
15:40:10 [MikeSmith]
q?
15:40:22 [MichaelC]
scribe: MichaelC
15:40:45 [MichaelC]
action: faulkner to raise bug on ARIA being restricted to a11y
15:40:45 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-24 - Raise bug on ARIA being restricted to a11y [on Steve Faulkner - due 2010-04-13].
15:40:59 [MichaelC]
drop action 3
15:41:08 [kliehm]
"A" for "alternative"?
15:41:27 [MichaelC]
rrsagent, drop action 3
15:41:29 [MichaelC]
rrsagent, drop action 2
15:43:17 [MichaelC]
rs: ARIA Implementers guide states that mainstream user agents should provide a way to expose landmarks
15:43:34 [oedipus]
role in HTML is different from ARIA in HTML
15:43:51 [MichaelC]
cmn: Opera doesn't restrict its implementation to accessibility use cases
15:43:51 [MikeSmith]
q?
15:44:05 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/04/06-html-a11y-minutes.html oedipus
15:44:40 [MichaelC]
topic: Text alternatives (continued)
15:44:50 [MichaelC]
js: Seems we're close and just need a group to nail it down
15:45:05 [MichaelC]
ms: reminder, when we go back to WG should expect major disagreement
15:45:24 [MichaelC]
don't think the people who argued to not make alt always required have changed their positions
15:46:28 [MichaelC]
js: validator should warn on some of the alt situations
15:46:44 [MichaelC]
ms: configurable validator to reduce noise
15:46:49 [Laura]
Needs to be an error on a warning
15:46:57 [MichaelC]
cmn: if you can turn off warnings, the validator doesn't do its job
15:47:20 [MichaelC]
sf: <missed>
15:47:37 [Laura]
In terns of the schema text alternatives need to me required.
15:47:54 [MichaelC]
ms: the schema will need to explicate requiredness states of alt
15:48:01 [MichaelC]
might not be too much of a spec change
15:48:24 [MichaelC]
ask a statement that conformance checkers should warn on images that lack alt attributes
15:48:26 [MichaelC]
this is new
15:48:42 [MichaelC]
don't think conformance checker warnings have been proposed to date
15:48:43 [Laura]
Strongly disagree. Should be an error.
15:49:07 [Laura]
Requiring a set of programmatically valid options helps ensure that images have complete structure. Complete structure requires both src and text alternatives.
15:49:11 [MichaelC]
js: the pushback would be on if it is required
15:49:17 [Laura]
src is to sighted users as text alternatives is to some users with disabilities.
15:49:21 [Stevef]
Add usemap attribute to the canvas element (change proposal) http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/addimagemaptocanvas
15:49:32 [MichaelC]
mc: the issue is we want a shade of gray (warnings) but only black & white exist (error or no error)
15:49:37 [Stevef]
q+
15:49:44 [Laura]
Omit the src attribute and sighted users have no content.
15:49:44 [Laura]
Omit text alternatives and some users with disabilities have no content.
15:49:45 [oedipus]
strong plus 1 to Laura "src is to sighted users as alt is to some users with disabilities or crappy equipment"
15:49:53 [Laura]
Without both a src and a text alternative the <img> element is incomplete.
15:50:01 [MichaelC]
ms: validators check against DTDs
15:50:07 [MichaelC]
conformance checkers go beyond that
15:51:03 [MikeSmith]
q?
15:51:10 [Joshue]
MC: Do we want to add this category of warnings?
15:51:19 [Joshue]
MC: Would there be opposition?
15:51:23 [Joshue]
MS: There is one.
15:51:40 [MichaelC]
don't confuse conformance checker requirements with validation
15:51:43 [Joshue]
MC: This means that we want "conformance" as such
15:51:55 [MikeSmith]
ack Stevef
15:53:26 [Zakim]
-Gregory_Rosmaita
15:53:40 [Zakim]
-Laura
15:54:08 [MikeSmith]
back at 3 minutes after
15:55:49 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/04/06-html-a11y-minutes.html oedipus
16:00:53 [SCain]
My favourite place in chinatown in birmingham is http://www.cafesoya.co.uk/
16:04:04 [Zakim]
+Gregory_Rosmaita
16:08:12 [oedipus]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balti_Triangle
16:09:43 [oedipus]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/legacies/immig_emig/england/birmingham/article_1.shtml
16:12:05 [Zakim]
+Cynthia_Shelly
16:12:52 [oedipus]
sean, laura, we're starting again
16:14:01 [Zakim]
+Laura
16:14:37 [MichaelC]
<return from break>
16:15:09 [MichaelC]
ms: objections to image without alt being a warning instead of an error?
16:15:15 [cyns]
I object too
16:15:21 [oedipus]
i object as well
16:15:25 [MichaelC]
lc: object; helps to ensure images have complete structure
16:15:39 [cyns]
(but I'm ok with the exceptions in the change proposal)
16:15:43 [chaals]
q+
16:15:52 [MichaelC]
mc: would making it warning instead of an error change that?
16:16:01 [Stevef]
Stevef has joined #html-a11y
16:16:07 [MikeSmith]
q?
16:16:07 [chaals]
ack me
16:16:10 [Joshue]
+q
16:16:12 [MichaelC]
lc: if lack of text alternatives was an error, alt could be just a warning as one of the options in the suite of possibilitiies
16:16:23 [MichaelC]
cmn: think it should be an error but can live with it being a warning
16:16:38 [cyns]
cyns has joined #html-a11y
16:16:45 [MichaelC]
because of the balance between 1) an image not done right without a proper text alternative 2) an improper text alternative is worse
16:17:12 [MichaelC]
in the end, can live either way
16:17:24 [MichaelC]
lc: in language, incomplete without text alternative
16:17:35 [MichaelC]
cmn: also incomplete without *appropriate* text alternative
16:17:46 [oedipus]
Laura (earlier): "Requiring a set of programmatically valid options helps ensure that images have complete structure. Complete structure requires both src and text alternatives."
16:17:46 [oedipus]
... "src is to sighted users as text alternatives is to some users with disabilities."
16:17:46 [oedipus]
... "Omit the src attribute and sighted users have no content."
16:17:46 [oedipus]
... "Omit text alternatives and some users with disabilities have no content. "
16:17:46 [MichaelC]
anyway, lots of conformance issues are arbitrary
16:18:08 [MichaelC]
sf: if there's no alt attribute, we get nothing
16:18:13 [oedipus]
one can't validate the contents of a <p></p>
16:18:14 [cyns]
q+ to say that we should separate 'missing' from the presentational issues, and make 2 change proposals. Can we resolve that we're ok with the presentational stuff in the change proposal, and then discuss missing and how best to handle those use cases?
16:18:17 [MichaelC]
unlikely to win on an always error proposal
16:18:25 [MichaelC]
we can win on a warning proposal
16:18:27 [MichaelC]
ack j
16:18:38 [MichaelC]
joc: still support the WAI CG proposal
16:18:51 [MikeSmith]
q?
16:18:52 [MichaelC]
there may be use cases that alt not needed because other description mechanisms exist
16:19:00 [MichaelC]
therefore ok with warning as long as author notified
16:19:10 [MichaelC]
don't want to promote poor alt text to shut up validator
16:19:13 [MichaelC]
which maybe error does
16:19:25 [Marco_Ranon]
q+
16:19:27 [MichaelC]
ack c
16:19:27 [Zakim]
cyns, you wanted to say that we should separate 'missing' from the presentational issues, and make 2 change proposals. Can we resolve that we're ok with the presentational stuff
16:19:30 [Zakim]
... in the change proposal, and then discuss missing and how best to handle those use cases?
16:19:41 [MichaelC]
cs: we're confounding two issues
16:19:53 [chaals]
laura++
16:20:11 [MichaelC]
we could probably agree on all the pieces of the proposal except the missing alt case
16:20:50 [MikeSmith]
q?
16:20:52 [MichaelC]
lc: dropping from change proposal a generated attribute explicitly indicating alt unknown addressed
16:21:53 [MichaelC]
cs: so we could put forth a change proposal about how to deal with missing alt
16:22:11 [MichaelC]
and another proposal on how to deal with longdesc, labelledby etc.
16:22:18 [MichaelC]
cmn: adding aria-label
16:22:26 [oedipus]
aria-labelledby should be valid ONLY if @alt is present
16:22:56 [oedipus]
aria-label value should be SAME as @alt value
16:22:58 [Laura]
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20090126#With_Suggested_Text
16:23:08 [MichaelC]
ack m
16:23:16 [MichaelC]
mr: prefer error instead of warning
16:23:34 [MichaelC]
errors are more easily noticed
16:23:49 [MichaelC]
the actual error message should point to WCAG that explains how to correct
16:24:29 [MichaelC]
ms: certainly can have conformance checkers point to whatever resource we think is best
16:24:36 [MichaelC]
js: explain difference between error and warning?
16:24:44 [oedipus]
q+ to say that aria-labelledby should be valid ONLY if @alt is present; aria-label value should be SAME as @alt value
16:25:13 [MichaelC]
ms: conformance checkers are like "lint checkers"
16:25:21 [MichaelC]
they do static checking of serialized documents
16:25:29 [Sean]
q+ how do we migrate to a world where the alt is a component of the image, and thus src is sufficient
16:25:45 [MichaelC]
there can be fatal errors, errors, warnings, info
16:25:56 [MichaelC]
validator.nu uses those classes
16:26:15 [Sean]
q+ to say how do we migrate to a world where the alt is a component of the image, and thus src is sufficient
16:26:30 [MichaelC]
underneath; its implementation follows the spec as best it can
16:26:32 [kliehm]
@oedipus: Re: aria-label, Google requested that attribute as an substitute of @title without triggering the tooltip, so it's different from @alt
16:26:41 [MichaelC]
spec errors are error
16:26:53 [MichaelC]
obsolete but conforming are warnngs
16:27:17 [MichaelC]
also issues discretionary warnings (not in spec), e.g., lack of character encoding spec
16:27:22 [Sean]
how slow a train is HTML6 chaals
16:27:31 [oedipus]
@kliehm why aria-label instead of aria-describedby for @title content?
16:27:40 [kliehm]
s/warnngs/warnings/
16:28:07 [MichaelC]
tool distinguishes presentation of the classes
16:28:14 [kliehm]
@oedipus because they wanted an img attribute, not a referer to another element
16:28:41 [oedipus]
@kliehm ok that makes sense for img, but @title is global
16:28:56 [MichaelC]
the proposal on missing alt would provide a message with a link to a resource
16:29:01 [MichaelC]
for more guidance
16:29:04 [MikeSmith]
q?
16:29:12 [oedipus]
ack me
16:29:12 [Zakim]
oedipus, you wanted to say that aria-labelledby should be valid ONLY if @alt is present; aria-label value should be SAME as @alt value
16:29:38 [MichaelC]
gr: aria-labelledby should be valid ONLY if @alt is present; aria-label value should be SAME as @alt value
16:29:41 [Laura]
Suggested Text: A conformance checker must report the lack of a text alternative as an error. The img element is only valid when at least one of the following is true:
16:29:41 [Laura]
* alt is present (empty or non-empty) OR
16:29:42 [Laura]
* @aria-labelledby is present (non-empty only) OR
16:29:42 [oedipus]
aria-labelledby should be valid ONLY if @alt is present; aria-label value should be SAME as @alt value
16:29:42 [Laura]
* the <img> is located within a <figure> that has a non-empty <figcaption> OR
16:29:42 [Laura]
* @role="presentation
16:30:00 [MichaelC]
lc: the WAI CG proposal included that
16:30:05 [chaals]
q+
16:30:13 [MichaelC]
jc: not sure sure about that, but apparently accepted it in the WAI CG doc
16:30:13 [Laura]
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20090126#With_Suggested_Text
16:30:40 [MichaelC]
sh: there will come a time that the text alternative is embedded in the image resource itself
16:30:45 [MichaelC]
don't want to lock that possibility out
16:30:57 [MichaelC]
e.g., in how conformance checker responds to just the HTML markup
16:31:08 [MichaelC]
cmn: alt requires contextual understanding of image
16:31:17 [MichaelC]
the alt in context of its use important
16:31:29 [MichaelC]
long descriptions can be more generic and embedded in image
16:31:41 [MichaelC]
but in 10 years of this capability existing, has rarely been taken advantage of
16:31:56 [MichaelC]
sh: expect it to take over more
16:32:03 [MichaelC]
cmn: I thought so too 10 years ago
16:32:18 [oedipus]
sean, that's the fallicy behind the flickr case -- flickr can extract metadata from an image (resolution, camera type, etc.)
16:32:19 [MikeSmith]
q?
16:32:20 [MichaelC]
anyway, the issue that image doesn't know its context
16:32:25 [MikeSmith]
ack Sean
16:32:25 [Zakim]
Sean, you wanted to say how do we migrate to a world where the alt is a component of the image, and thus src is sufficient
16:32:28 [MikeSmith]
ack chaals
16:32:29 [MichaelC]
q+ to say some images are more context-variable than others
16:33:02 [MichaelC]
gr: aria-labelledby has same functionality as alt, so @alt is fallback for it
16:33:24 [MichaelC]
cmn: so in the future could require that must have one of the options
16:33:34 [MichaelC]
but a warning that for fallback @alt should be present
16:33:44 [MichaelC]
joc: missed1
16:33:58 [MichaelC]
cmn: agree
16:34:28 [MichaelC]
cs: shouldn't be invalid to not have alt
16:34:38 [MichaelC]
but people want to reduce page size and avoid duplication
16:34:46 [MichaelC]
not sure the duplication is a good idea
16:34:54 [MichaelC]
cmn: it is for backwards compatibility
16:34:58 [MichaelC]
cs: in short term
16:35:11 [MichaelC]
but not as warnings into the conformance checker going forward
16:35:31 [oedipus]
the hope is that 3 years from now ARIA overlays won't be necessary to produce usable, accessible HTML
16:35:43 [MikeSmith]
q?
16:36:06 [MichaelC]
joc: there could be confusion
16:36:47 [MichaelC]
<missed a bit>
16:36:56 [MichaelC]
cs: aria-labelledby useful for icons
16:37:12 [oedipus]
command element includes icon and label attributes
16:37:16 [MichaelC]
remembering that labelledby is visible to all
16:37:18 [MichaelC]
ack me
16:37:18 [Zakim]
MichaelC, you wanted to say some images are more context-variable than others
16:37:52 [oedipus]
command element def needs to state that use of @icon necessitates @label - not just a11y issue - icons are culturally dependent
16:37:52 [Joshue]
+q
16:38:01 [MikeSmith]
a?
16:38:03 [MikeSmith]
q?
16:38:13 [MichaelC]
mc: back to point on context variable images, some more variable than others
16:38:13 [richardschwerdtfe]
richardschwerdtfe has joined #html-a11y
16:38:32 [MichaelC]
joc: use of aria-describedby makes sense
16:38:46 [MichaelC]
but unsure if suggesting using aria-labelledby will come back to bite us
16:38:53 [chaals]
s/use/not clear that use/
16:39:04 [MichaelC]
sf: one use case is to associate an external caption with the figure
16:39:06 [chaals]
s/not clear that use/use/
16:39:35 [Sean]
why is there no aria-textequivalent
16:39:47 [MikeSmith]
q?
16:39:52 [Joshue]
-q
16:41:26 [MichaelC]
mc: let's get back to splitting the change proposal
16:41:37 [MichaelC]
lc: removed the part about missing alt from the change proposal
16:41:41 [MikeSmith]
q?
16:42:07 [oedipus]
plus 1 to LC's revision
16:42:08 [MichaelC]
Matt was the proponent and he can bring that forward as a separate proposal
16:42:56 [Laura]
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20090126#With_Suggested_Text
16:43:07 [Joshue]
Yes, thanks to Laura :-)
16:43:54 [MikeSmith]
q?
16:44:10 [MichaelC]
mk: need to add aria-label to the above change proposal
16:45:00 [MichaelC]
js: it says it should be an error
16:45:09 [MichaelC]
we were moving towards it being a warning
16:45:17 [MichaelC]
lc: I can't live with it being only a warning
16:45:23 [MichaelC]
the WAI CG proposal had it that way
16:45:28 [Zakim]
-FtF
16:45:52 [Sean]
q+ to say should probably say,The img element is only conformant
16:45:56 [Laura]
Structural Integrity of the Language
16:46:10 [Zakim]
+??P1
16:46:22 [chaals]
zakim, ??P1 is FtF
16:46:22 [Zakim]
+FtF; got it
16:46:26 [MikeSmith]
q?
16:46:45 [oedipus]
FIFTEEN MINUTES TO TOP OF HOUR
16:47:11 [MichaelC]
sf: ultimately we would like an error
16:47:15 [MichaelC]
but either way a flag is raised
16:47:24 [MichaelC]
joc: action required either way
16:47:34 [chaals]
q+ to suggest we shelve this argument for now and note that it is under discussion in the change proposal itself, and return to the detail later.
16:47:37 [MichaelC]
we want to improve awareness but allow things to proceed
16:47:39 [oedipus]
alt triggering an error has been one of the biggest learning tools in our toolkit
16:47:44 [MichaelC]
js: this avoids an expected fight otherwise
16:48:00 [MichaelC]
ms: doesn't absolutely avoid the fight, might not get agreement on warning either
16:48:15 [MichaelC]
lc: right now in spec it's an error but with lots of loopholes
16:48:26 [MichaelC]
js: if it disappeared entirely we would fall on our sword over that
16:48:40 [MichaelC]
ms: spec says it's an error but nothing happens as far as conformance checker
16:49:14 [oedipus]
q?
16:49:15 [MichaelC]
sf: this isn't yet implemented in validator.nu?
16:49:19 [MichaelC]
ms: not implementable
16:49:23 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/04/06-html-a11y-minutes.html oedipus
16:49:24 [MichaelC]
too much bits of logic
16:49:26 [SCain]
q?
16:49:30 [MichaelC]
sf: there's an algorithm
16:49:35 [MichaelC]
ms: yes, that's not implemented
16:50:00 [cyns]
+1 Janina on starting with error, since that's what we really want
16:50:19 [MichaelC]
js: might be best for error to be our position
16:50:22 [MikeSmith]
q?
16:50:53 [oedipus]
plus 1 to starting with an error
16:50:56 [MichaelC]
cmn: does anyone believe it should not be an error?
16:51:17 [MichaelC]
<one vote>
16:51:49 [MichaelC]
sf: there are legitimate uses cases in which no alt is available
16:51:54 [MichaelC]
not that there should be, but that there are
16:52:12 [MichaelC]
for me, I don't care about conforming, I want to see the alt
16:52:26 [MichaelC]
if a warning still gets people to add alt, we win
16:52:45 [chaals]
[/me undecided about the error being critical, or a bad idea]
16:52:56 [richardschwerdtfe]
richardschwerdtfe has joined #html-a11y
16:53:04 [MichaelC]
ms: an error is an absolute statement that you've done something wrong
16:53:41 [MichaelC]
warning is that there is probably something wrong, but it might be that you're not
16:54:56 [MichaelC]
so in case of alt text, when we can't tell for sure that it's a problem the alt text is missing, that might be the more appropriate case
16:55:49 [MikeSmith]
q?
16:56:39 [MichaelC]
we can communicate this to chairs, and that this was a position we had to "back down to", and that as stated it's something we feel very strongly about
16:56:46 [cyns]
I'm very, very uncomfortable with a warning. Very.
16:57:05 [cyns]
If src is missing, is it an error or a warning? alt should be the same.
16:57:13 [oedipus]
agreed!!!
16:57:57 [oedipus]
ack sean
16:57:57 [Zakim]
Sean, you wanted to say should probably say,The img element is only conformant
16:58:19 [MichaelC]
sh: should use wording like "conformance error" instead of "validity error"
16:59:09 [chaals]
[-1 to wheeling and dealing here]
16:59:11 [oedipus]
plus 1 to conformance error over warning
17:00:03 [Laura]
plus 1 to conformance error over warning
17:00:17 [MichaelC]
mc: what if we include in the change proposal that @src is also a warning?
17:00:27 [MichaelC]
so they're both treated equally
17:00:38 [MichaelC]
<some people soften position, but still objections>
17:00:44 [MichaelC]
<desire to sleep in all this>
17:02:04 [oedipus]
me longdesc for Red_Wedge origins image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beat_the_Whites_with_the_Red_Wedge
17:02:22 [MichaelC]
js: test votes
17:02:45 [MichaelC]
Are we in favour of @src and @alt being at the same level (both error or both warning)
17:02:50 [oedipus]
s/sleep in all this/sleep on all this
17:02:53 [Sean]
vote for equal: the spec says What an img element represents depends on the src attribute and the alt attribute. So its implied already
17:03:02 [cyns]
+1
17:03:28 [MichaelC]
<2 favour, 4 oppose>
17:03:38 [Laura]
vote for equal: t
17:03:44 [MichaelC]
Can we live with warning?
17:03:45 [Laura]
no to warning
17:03:52 [oedipus]
minus 1 to warning
17:03:54 [cyns]
only if src is also warning
17:04:02 [Sean]
if src is warning
17:04:09 [MichaelC]
8 favour, 4 oppose
17:05:19 [oedipus]
missing @alt = conformance error; missing @src = conformance error
17:05:41 [cyns]
+1
17:05:54 [Sean]
missed the question
17:06:13 [MichaelC]
Do we support the change proposal, except for the unclosed part about error vs warning?
17:06:16 [MichaelC]
<all support>
17:07:04 [Zakim]
-Cynthia_Shelly
17:07:18 [MichaelC]
rrsagent, make minutes
17:07:18 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/04/06-html-a11y-minutes.html MichaelC
17:07:19 [Zakim]
-Sean_Hayes
17:07:43 [MikeSmith]
[adjourned]
17:07:59 [Zakim]
-Gregory_Rosmaita
17:08:10 [MikeSmith]
very big thanks to Sally Cain and RNIB for hosting
17:08:14 [Laura]
bye
17:08:23 [Zakim]
-Laura
17:08:23 [MikeSmith]
RRSAgent, make minutes
17:08:23 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/04/06-html-a11y-minutes.html MikeSmith
17:13:23 [Zakim]
disconnecting the lone participant, FtF, in WAI_PFWG(HTMLTF F2F)3:30AM
17:13:25 [Zakim]
WAI_PFWG(HTMLTF F2F)3:30AM has ended
17:13:29 [Zakim]
Attendees were Gregory_Rosmaita, Sally_Cain, Marco_Ranon, Eric_Carlson, Rich_Schwerdtfeger, Janina_Sajka, Joshue_O'Connor, Michael_Cooper, Mike_Smith, Charles_McCathieNevile,
17:13:32 [Zakim]
... Steve_Faulkner, Cynthia_Shelly, Martin_Kliehm, Sean_Hayes, Laura, FtF
17:17:03 [MichaelC]
MichaelC has joined #html-a11y
17:19:20 [eric_carlson]
eric_carlson has joined #html-a11y
17:44:31 [MichaelC]
trackbot, end meeting
17:44:31 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
17:44:31 [Zakim]
sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is
17:44:32 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:44:32 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/04/06-html-a11y-minutes.html trackbot
17:44:33 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
17:44:33 [RRSAgent]
I see 2 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2010/04/06-html-a11y-actions.rdf :
17:44:33 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: cooper to organize joint discussion of testing task force and html a11y task force [1]
17:44:33 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/04/06-html-a11y-irc#T13-19-09
17:44:33 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: faulkner to raise bug on ARIA being restricted to a11y [4]
17:44:33 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/04/06-html-a11y-irc#T15-40-45