See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 09 December 2010
<paulc> paulc is on mute
<paulc> Agenda request from paulc in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Dec/0122.html
<oedipus> i have a message from everett -- he's been ill and due to health issues everett will not be able to fulfill his commitment and is not available at the time being
<oedipus> scribe: Gregory_Rosmaita
<oedipus> scribenick: oedipus
MS: what is at top of agenda is issue about the HTMLWG issue 122
PC: have you asked for changes to agenda?
MS: anything to add?
PC: sent an email request in last half hour http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Dec/0122.html
<JF> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9452
MS: additional tracks issue
PC: last pre-last call bug to be processed by 8 december 2010 -- email discussion on TF list --chairs recommend mark as NEEDSINFO and put tracker request on it to escalate it -- TF already working on change proposal for this bug
MS: fairly big deal
... comment from MJS on this bug that was intriguing
PC: just want to discuss what chairs are planning to do to tell the TF what we are planning to do and give notice -- if pushback, would like to hear it
<MikeSmith> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9452#c7
JF: certainly 1 thing that media
sub-group is aware of -- open issue; didn't have full call --
devs missing; we need to focus on track -- spent a lot of time
looking at timestamp format -- escalate to issue to track
better would be ok by me -- may change speed/energy expended on
this -- next on priority list -- being tracked at procedural
level
... does that answer your qauestion, PC?
PC: 2 outcomes: 1) NEEDSINFO
without tracker request - would have until late january to
escalate; since already working on change proposal, and since
that bug is assigned not to editor but to TF, best thing to do
is to escalate to isssue
... willing to join a media call to discuss timelines,
schedules and deadlines
JF: sounds fair
... will put at top of agenda for last media subgroup call
before holidays
... if chairs want to make issue and put into issue tracker,
then they should
PC: thanks, JF
<paulc> going back on mute
MS: issue 122
issue-122?
<trackbot> ISSUE-122 does not exist
<JF> MS: requesting a brief summary of issue 122 Lady of Shalott
MS: complicated situation -- 2 diff change proposals put forward from working group one from GJR one from Laura
<inserted> scribenick: JF
2 change proposals - 1 from Gregory and the other from Laura
what to do?
Greg: my change proposal came from direct instruction from the Task Force
reflects what was agreed upon at the F2F at TPAC
also ram by the group 2=3 weekes ago
many feel that Greg has consensus behind what he presented
<paulc> Actually I believe Laura's proposal is older.
<MikeSmith> action-94?
<trackbot> ACTION-94 does not exist
seems Laura's proposal is older than Greg's
this is one of the reasons why it was discussed at TPAC
Laura is not on the call nor was at TPAC
<oedipus> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/purely_decorative_images#Details
MS: we need to follow up with Laura to see what her thoughts are
<oedipus> addresses: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/122
seems that the 2 change proposals are contradictory
<oedipus> fulfillment of ACTION 195 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/195
want to have 1 that the TF can endorse
<oedipus> 4.8.1.1.7 A purely decorative image that doesn't add any information
<oedipus> If an image is decorative but isn't especially page-specific -- for example, an image that forms part of a site-wide design scheme -- the image should be specified in the site's or document's CSS, not in the markup of the document.
<oedipus> Exceptions to this rule, in cases where CSS cannot be used to display an entirely decorative image, are covered by the HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives. [HTML ALT TECHS] Authors are also encouraged to consult the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 for more detailed information and acceptable techniques. [WCAG 2.0]
<inserted> scribenick: JF
Greg's action item was to specifically re-write 4.8.1.1.7
SF: The genesis of this was based upon a bug around alt text
which then became a larger issue
<Zakim> oedipus, you wanted to say that my impression is that laura wants more push-off from spec to SteveF's alt tech document, i support, but not generic W3C citations, but direct
<Stevef> provide text alternatives for images feedback from Everett Zufelt http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11027
<MikeSmith> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11027
<inserted> scribenick: oedipus
SF: disconnect between lady of shallot related to poem and lady of shallot to provide atmosphere - everett said that if IMG used, must have @alt - conformance restrictions in spec correct? don't think have conformance
JF: part of problem can be
explained by leonie -- remember a blog post she wrote about
this -- some blind users find @alt "extra chatter" and others
want nothing -- factors involved: sighted person who lost sight
who has rich visual library in head versus user blind since
birth without visual touchpoints/reference --- conceptual ideas
that can't be visualized -- problem: trying to find a...
... one-size-fits all solution
SF: should it be non-conforming to provide @alt in that case?
JF: "non-conforming"?
SF: yes -- non-conforming to provide @alt for "decorative" lady of shallott example
JF: personal opinion -- should not be non-conforming -- don't want to be judgemental thing -- WCAG issue, not HTML5 issue
SF: agree - that's why i think should be non-conforming
<Marco_Ranon> +1 to JF
LW: agree -- restricting it way is in spec at moment is too hard-line an approach -- cannot differentiate between decorative and content images for individual authors, but blind users should be able to skip image descriptions like sighted users skip visual objects
CS: should be up to author to decide - if author wants to be conforming with decorative image, should use alt="" -- legitimate design decision
SF: we seem to be in fairly broad agreement
<Zakim> cyns, you wanted to say that @alt should be conforming but not required in that circumstance
<Zakim> oedipus, you wanted to ask what happens if alt="Boston city skyline" and role="presentation"
CS: ARIA imp guide says image not in a11y API at all, but alt string in DOM -- if AT should use or offer user-configurability
JF: all in general agreement that everett's point in original bug, logical conclusion is to advance it forward -- status of bug right now is RESOLVED LATER
SF: don't agree with everything
everett says -- criticism of example in alt techs document
--
... author's decision -- atmospheric image adding visual
niceity to text around it, but is possiblity of doing both --
remember this is alt techs bug, not spec bug
... 2 points of view that need to be resolved are what is in
alt techs doc and what is in the spec
JF: majority of people on call think softer stance the better position -- hardline stance in HTML5 is too hardline and has potential for harm (undefined @alt) -- HTML5 spec wrong, alt techs are right -- is that decision need to make?
SF: when chairs opened up this
bug/issue to all of the documents, wasn't clear to me or others
-- hixie defending strict conformance as editorial issue, which
it is NOT -- issue has not been framed well -- needs to be
better articulated for all concerned
... chairs need to do what they need to do to disambiguate --
alt techs document and spec -- need convergence or one
replacing the other, but have to make that decision before we
can reach consensus -- don't know process, need help/word from
chairs
JF: does TF have to go back to chairs to request formal changes to spec?
SF: chairs have to deal with bloat of issue somehow -- reason for so many bugs and change proposals -- need to get more clarity all around -- need to know process for resolving it
LW: go back to HTML WG chairs -- identified something that needs to be addressed, here is a plan, and how do we proceede
SF: yes
... raised this issue of clarity on last call i attended --
PCotton said would get chairs to reply but no reply from
chairs
PC: on mute -- doing research
JF: how much is this related to issue 31? still out there -- on agenda for this call -- author conformance reqs for @alt on images
SF: specific instance of more general issue
JF: Alt Techs document is included in HTML5 suite of documents -- status of Alt Techs will go from ED to WD
SF: published as WD three times (with next pub)
JF: change proposal for issue 31 is adopt SteveF's document as replacement for what is in HTML5
<paulc> The Chairs provided our view in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Oct/0393.html
JF: if Alt Techs document in direction we discussed today and your doc addresses this we should put forward that as change proposal for issue 31 would that solve this bug as well
<paulc> This is when we proposed that any change proposal for ISSUE-122 should speak to ALL the WGs documents.
<paulc> My email to Laura this week was simply asking her to follow that direction.
SF: yes, it would; hit on something important -- alt techs spec contains normative guidance that contradicts normative guidance in HTML5 spec -- needs to be resolved -- is a conformance req document, not an informative document -- normative document on how @alt attribute should be used and how to provide a good one
<paulc> The Chairs objective is to ensure that any changes to the family of HTML5 specs make the specs consistent.
PC: put in link to email from MJS
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Oct/0393.html
-- said any proposal must make documents consistent -- concern
over contradictory info in 2 diff documents
... problem with laura's change proposal originally -- updated
to include what documents and what can should be changed
... objective of chairs is to ensure that change in one
document alligned with other documents so no contrary advice
given
JF: the issue is more than lady shallott but larger concern conveyed by chairs
PC: without a doubt -- pushback
from editors when accepted change proposals which in view of
editor have been incomplete in context of making change in one
place and leaving contradictory material in same or other
related document
... chairs want to bring deficiencies forward -- 2 documents
that cover same material should be made consistent, whether WG
endorses changes is separate matter
<Stevef> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Oct/0404.html Re: ISSUE-122 (shalott-example) - Expanded scope and Call for Counter-Proposals
SF: referred to above emessage -- need for clarification -- hixie claimed "chairs violating own process"
PC: speaking on my own as a
chair, one man's issue is another man's waste of time -- chairs
let threads die on wg list because that should be for technical
discussion, not debate
... sent out call for proposal and got reply that "this is a
waste of time" -- chairs not going to get into position of
being subjective about tracker requests and escalations because
think can be done by WG by refusing ChangeProposals and
refusing to endorse change proposals when surveyed
... here today to nail down things before 10 december
deadline
... change proposal for 122 lady of shallot needs
specificity
GJR: my action item issue-22 lady of shallot change proposal: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/purely_decorative_images (reflects consensus at TPAC 2010 HTML WG F2F) covers this
<paulc> paulc leaving to get ready for WG Weekly meeting
JF: anyone have anything to discuss before we adjourn?
[no response]
[ADJOURNED]
<kliehm> prsent+ Martin_Kliehm
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135 of Date: 2009/03/02 03:52:20 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/i have a message from everett -- he's been ill and due to health issues unable everett will not be able to fulfill his commitment and is not available at the time being/i have a message from everett -- he's been ill and due to health issues everett will not be able to fulfill his commitment and is not available at the time being/ Succeeded: s/more general issues/more general issue/ Succeeded: s/JF: published as WD/SF: published as WD/ Succeeded: s/"chairs violating own process"/hixie claimed "chairs violating own process"/ Succeeded: i/Greg's action item/scribenick: JF Succeeded: i/2 change proposals - 1 from Gregory and the other from Laur/scribenick: JF Succeeded: i/SF: disconnect between lady of shallot related to poem/scribenick: oedipus Found Scribe: Gregory_Rosmaita WARNING: No scribe lines found matching ScribeNick pattern: <Gregory_Rosmaita> ... Found ScribeNick: oedipus Found ScribeNick: JF Found ScribeNick: JF Found ScribeNick: oedipus ScribeNicks: oedipus, JF Default Present: Gregory_Rosmaita, richardschwerdtfe, John_Foliot, Steven_Faulkner, Michael_Cooper, jongund, paulc, Eric_Carlson, Mike, Léonie_Watson Present: Eric_Carlson Gregory_Rosmaita John_Foliot Jon_Gunderson Léonie_Watson Martin_Kliehm Michael_Cooper Paul_Cotton Richard_Schwerdtfeger Steven_Faulkner Mike_Smith Cynthia_Shelly Marco_Ranon Regrets: Everett_Zufelt Laura_Carlson Joshue_O'Connor Silvia_Pfieffer Janina_Sajka Kenny_Johar Denis_Boudreau Aurélien_Levy Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Dec/0119.html Found Date: 09 Dec 2010 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2010/12/09-html-a11y-minutes.html People with action items: WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]