Shawn: we have one main thing on the agenda today:
Sharron: This is so needed, people think they know alt text is very needed. But it is a big subject. Getting alt text right is the prime directive.
Ian: I agree it is very complete
document but it needs to be.
... Developers who want to know how for example. A lot of the length is examples. It is not as weighty as it might appear.
Doyle: I agree with Sharron and Ian.
<yeliz> I like examples in general.
Andrew: I like everything is in one place. Pros & cons of different approaches is a nice addition in a document like this. Maybe the examples could be good for an expand or collapse on that.
<shawn> ACTION: alt doc -- consider ways to improve usability, eg expand-collapse examples [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/07/02-eo-minutes.html#action01]
Doyle: This is really needed.
<yeliz> I agree with Doyle, it's really important
Shawn: what is the code need to be? Coding techniques?
Sharron: looking at number 6 an illustrations with a lot of different contexts, some is techniques, but a lot of it is what to put in as alt text.
<yeliz> That's why I think examples are useful
Shawn: If you land on as is what are the pros and cons of how it is laid out formatted, things like that?
<shawn> doyle: for developers, they won't be put off but for a content author (not coder who knows HTML), it is kind of a dry looking document.
Doyle: It is a kind of a dry looking document.
Ian: this is for a HTML developers, and is pretty good.
Andrew: a lot of good information for content writers is in this context, for someone to work that out who is not a content writer, too dry. Consider afterwards a friendlier cut at it.
Sharron: I don't think we can make one document for all people, then a more narrow for content developers. I'm not sure that will work for either audience. This is a kind of document developers for who know the W3C. Make a new document for those who are a different audience.
<yeliz> I agree with Sharron
<Andrew> Recent Australian example of writing alt-text content for maps - http://www.deyalexander.com.au/blog/2010/06/writing-text-alternatives-for-maps/
Andrew: yep that is exactly what I was saying. Leave it as it is, and make some thing for a different audience.
Shawn: what are your thoughts about what you expect to see. Is this a standard, what is it?
<yeliz> I think it is a Techniques document!
<yeliz> Not a standard, too subjective I think for a standards document.
Ian: It is an advisory. Similar to a WCAG advisory document.
<yeliz> and people are familiar with techniques documents from WCAG 2.0
Andrew: Just from the title alternatives to text examples. But it goes beyond that when you start reading it.
Sylvie: What about best practices
document like WAI ARIA best practices document. Too technical
at times hard to understand, but looking at the examples, that
helped. For people not familiar with W3C documents sometimes
normative, sometimes informative.
... Structure of the document also.
Shawn: on the normative or informative is it clear what was what?
Sylvie: Yes what was what.
<shawn> ACTION: alt-doc: clarify normative & informative (or, maybe put the normative in the HTML spec, and the informtive in this doc) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/07/02-eo-minutes.html#action02]
<Andrew> http://dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/#conformance - All diagrams, examples, and notes in this specification are non-normative, as are all sections explicitly marked non-normative. Everything else in this specification is normative.
Sylive: I have another problem, the heading levels used in the document, sometimes H2 for techniques, there are inconsistencies sometimes H3 and then followed by H5.
<shawn> ACTION: alt-doc - check headings structure [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/07/02-eo-minutes.html#action03]
Shawn: Are the advantages and disadvantages and then saying first something specific hard to follow feedback for the editor.
Sylvie: Hard to follow from a reading if you don't have a technical background.
Ian: About the headings, are you expecting every H4 to be example coding heading? H2 introduces to a new technique that sort of thing?
Sylive: You have a H3 and then a H5. That sort of thing.
<shawn> ACTION: alt-doc - edit for understandability for less techy audience [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/07/02-eo-minutes.html#action04]
Ian: A reordering of things can easily be fixed.
Shawn: sounds like you have good feedback.
Sylvie: it is more about content.
Ian: edit for a less technical audience. From what you are saying, after reading a second time it was understandable. I would worry about writing less audience. You get less detail.
<shawn> ACTION: alt-doc - consider repurposing some or all of the content for non-tech audience [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/07/02-eo-minutes.html#action05]
Shawn: we'll need to figure that
out. Would we try to have two document. For different
audiences. If there is one, I think you would want to leave it,
it will be detailed accurate, if you can also add to help or
edit the wording to explain the jargon, for a less technical
audience that would be good.
... what else?
<sylvie> I have some points about content
<Liam> I have no points except that it is an excellent doc!
Shawn: Sylvie lets check with Steve if he would like those now? What would be easiest for you Sylvie? To type up, or do in minutes?
Sylvie: I don't know what context you want, I hesitate to send to list. I have written them already. Send directly?
Shawn: send directly to Steve, and cc EO editors lists. WAI/editorslist
Sylvie: that would for mistakes I have seen. But I have some small points. First point in the introduction, one phase people who don't know the subject, much about pwd, about people browse, I wonder if it is clear enough. They have a vision impairment and they use text to speech assistive technology. They sound the same when read out.
Shawn: needs more explanation for people not aware of screen readers.
Ian: people don't know the difference between voice browser and screen reader.
<shawn> ACTION: alt-doc http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-html-alt-techniques-20100624/#example-benefits -- need more explanation for people not aware, eg, of screen reader use, perhaps link to How PWDs Use the Web. consdier "screen reader" instead of or in addition to "text to speech software" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/07/02-eo-minutes.html#action06]
Shawn: Any objections to that suggestion? Next point?
Sylvie: first advantage heading about alt text, I wonder if it is OK to say that? Firefox and Opera don't support alt text?
Ian: talking about supports for when alt text is shown. Because there is a great deal of browsers in the display. Not terribly robust. For example some browsers to show all alt text in one light, and if the text goes too long and will be cut off. There is not standard way of disclosing alt text.
Shawn: what do we want to say about that.
Ian: written to show how browsers support this. I'll find one to drop into IRC.
shawn: maybe in this section to say more about how alt text is shown, when images are turned etc.
Ian: Different for different browsers, not what I would call robust. Removing the word robust, would probably be having a link to this document would be a sufficient fix for this, drop the word robust and use the word support. Add a link to the inconsistencies where they are.
<shawn> ACTION: alt-img: under "The img element alt attribute" and "Robust support in most graphical & non graphical web browsers and assistive technologies." -- probably not "robust", given how different browsers handle alt text on hover, when images are turned off, etc. -- maybe brefily mention inconsistencies and link to something like http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/?p=498 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/07/02-eo-minutes.html#action07]
Shawn: maybe mention briefly inconsistencies and mention the blog post.
Sylvie: some mistakes in the examples.
Shawn: send those to Steve and cc the EO editors list. Anything else on this document?
Shawn: thanks much for the input.