HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

09 Dec 2010


See also: IRC log


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
Everett_Zufelt, Laura_Carlson, Joshue_O'Connor, Silvia_Pfieffer, Janina_Sajka, Kenny_Johar, Denis_Boudreau, Aurélien_Levy


<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

Agenda Review

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

HTML WG Issues TF Needs to Explore

MS: 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> 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

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]


<kliehm> prsent+ Martin_Kliehm

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.135 (CVS log)
$Date: 2010/12/09 17:17:26 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
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]