See also: IRC log
<judy> agenda reference http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Apr/0262.html
<judy> scribe: gregory_rosmaita
<judy> (please associate new actions with "text" product in tracker
<judy> timeline to comment
<judy> send); discussion of approach (outline; detail; request): questions,
<judy> timeline to comment, support?
<judy> guidance on alt
<judy> ; options, questions, timeline to comment, text sub-group?, next steps
<judy> accessibility features: outlining key response points; drafting
<judy> details; who; when; escalation path
<judy> scribe 2 weeks out; adjourn.
<scribe> scribe: gregory_rosmaita
<scribe> scribenick: oedipus
JB: text product to associate action items to
JB: 3 that fall into this
... reviewing in detail
JB: 3 new ones - at least 2 fall
under this subgroup's purview; third might as well
... one has to do with validation of @alt
... another normative guidance for @alt
... validation of @alt -- Rich and i began to mock-up a draft of something to review in response -- consult http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0451.html
JB: 6-part decision -- 6
sub-items on whether HTML5 validates with or without presence
of @alt, @title, FIGCAPTION, etc.
... response missing info on how @alt works as opposed to @title (@alt has default place in visual rendering; @title does not and is transitory
... advice on Alt Text Techs -- WAI CG has interest in responding to this
ISSUE-31 / ISSUE-80 requirements survey: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0453.html
JB: what text to use for IMG element definition
GJR: this is our 1 win
... changed precisely in way submitted to HTML WG
JB: further action needed?
SF: nothing further
JB: other items fall in scope of this group?
JB: any objections?
JB: quick check for now
JB: discussed last week whether
having agreed-upon set of reqs from us would be helpful
... 9 items currently
... Rich only person to provide comments since last week
... anyone else have chance to review Verbose Desc Reqs this week and thoughts upon them?
... thanks to RichS for comments -- GJR integrated some and documented others
JF: will look at it this week
JB: any comments?
JF: clarification -- further feedback, straight up review -- specific deliverable?
JB: specific requirements may
help form consensus on this TF for clarification -- haven't
walked through too many clarifications as consensus activity,
some of these may map against
... hoping to come up with good consensus capture of overall principles and figure out points-of-discussoin -- like to address this week on list and next week at call
... like to spend more time talking about clarification emails today
... will review requirements
JS: will review
reviewers: JF, JS, JB (already reviewed RS, GJR)
JF: request if comment use the [text] subject line tag
GF: will review, too
JB: @alt and @title validation -- sent email to RS this morning -- can you clean-up and bounce-to-list?
RS: send note to list?
JB: suggested that add edits i made, strip out what indicated, and post to list -- can do myself
RS: please do JB
JB: posting now
... Rich and i looked at the chairs' decision on validation of @alt which has 6-sub-positions in it
... noted that there appear to be some things that chairs' didn't understand as reflected in decision; collection of decisions of considerable concern; took premise that while a FO may need to be forwarded, wanted to reply to decision specifically
... 1 approach: respond to everything incorrect in decision, or highlight most important mistakes/errors
... RS found that 4 of 6 sub-decisions problematic
... would like to know if attendees agree with conclusion, and that this email captures subgroup's understanding
... 4 items: 1) aria-labelledby does not make @alt conforming; 2) role="presentation" does not make missing @alt conforming; 3) missing @title ok if no @alt; 4) FIGCAPTION
JF: skipped over meta
... if put meta name="generator" in HEAD would allow author to not add any @alt AND validate
... personal email exception -- i shape my email in accordance with the person to whom i am sending the emessage
JB: any disagreement that need consensus clarification on 1) aria-labelledby does not make @alt conforming; 2) role="presentation" does not make missing @alt conforming; 3) missing @title ok if no @alt; 4) FIGCAPTION, 5) meta name="generator"
SF: figcaption issue?
JB: 1st reaction, caption can't
stand in for @alt
... looked at material on-line -- FIGCAPTION in publishing has specific purpose with nothing to do with @alt -- haven't had chance to check against HTML5 draft; mis-match of purpose in my opinion
... sceintific publication, have terse caption that encapsulates image context, but not sufficient as @alt
GF: agree with JB -- FIGCAPTION used for totally diff purpose than @alt -- not sure if strictly used as visible label, but conflating the 2 is a HUGE mistake
SF: allowing use of FIGCAPTION
not to replace @alt --
... @title becomes caption below image -- if person can't provide @alt, if do provide CAPTION for it, will be conforming, but not neccessarily accessible
... cases where users can't or will not provide @alt
JF: this is a problem, but this
is the least of the issues facing us
... if i post pic of cat on flickr and use caption "the neighborhood cat" --- need to investigate positive implications
... is caption appropriate @alt text? better than 73525.jpg
JB: like to review with Geoff --
FIGCAPTION use generally and specifically -- may be
... like some examples
... goal of what is conforming is something that is accessible -- whatever we agree to in TF, has to be something specific
GF: will work with Judy on this
<judy> ACTION: judy , geoff to look into figcaption & alt decision [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/04/25-text-minutes.html#action01]
JB: anyone have questions about other items RS and i identified?
JS: a bit confused -- don't want
to set policy on bad UI design (flickr case)
... concern about conflating caption and @alt
... caption like a comment on IMG; @alt is description of IMG
RS: aria-labelledby conforming --
rationale -- if author uses aria-labelledby to point to visual
image, when turn image off, will have label present with image,
so operates same as @alt
... use @alt or @aria-labelleby -- with labelledby saying this belongs to this particular image -- label probably centered in area reserved for image
... similar to figcaption
... showing label associated with image
SF: issues with labelledby is there is no need for text to be physically associated with image -- can be anywhere on page -- when image disappears, could be problematic -- FIGCAPTION has to be inside figure next to image
<JF> +1 to Stevef
SF: with labelledby need text alternative, can't be caption because of way mapped in a11y APIs -- no way to say this is not a text equivalent but a caption -- FIGCAPTION has semantic meaning; can't mistake caption for @alt
RS: view CAPTION as label
JF: more direct association
... looking at web page with list of speakers at conference -- have phone numbers -- if images turned off, have big blank square and loss of binding
<Zakim> janina, you wanted to say Flicker's inadequate ml shouldn't define good enough alt
MR: people use text with images
using HTML4 -- use text as label for image, but not
programmtically associated -- with HTML5 using CAPTION can be
programmatically associated, but htere are cases where caption
provides more info than contained in image
... authors can use labels in diff ways -- should provide authoring advice for labelledby and FIGCAPTION
... as we did for @alt
JB: appreciate discussion
... wonder if people could take on individual sections to refine and post to list in next few days so can file comprehensive clarification email request by friday so can look at it at next monday's meeting and vote on consensu
JB: level of detail -- would like to explore specific coordinated comprehensive clarification on each item and then sending them to HTML WG chairs with some urgency
JF: concerned about meta
name="generator" -- currently discussion on list
... Leif raised some really good points and done very good research about auto-generated meta strings
JB: would like to proceed as quickly as possible -- terse response useful, may want to hold 1 or more aside to get full consensus -- idally would be good to pass along whole package at once
starter draft response (JB and RS) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Apr/0287.html
JB: would generator change to decision or clarification presented
JF: if start multiple attacks on
individual issues, may be subject to divide and conquer
... will chairs accept sub-decision comments individually?
JB: invite discussion --- suggest
that we do as much work as possible, so reply to as much as can
now, perhaps add comments later
... with meta name="generator" sounds like JF willing to help with drafting?
JB: Rich do you want to clarify the aria-labelledby sub-decision
RS: don't need to argue with decision -- don't care if made argument or not -- using aria-labelledby is not overwritten by @alt
JB: drop aria-labelledby?
RS: can still use, NOT a replacement for @alt
JB: support clarification as written?
JF: preence of role="presentation" should not make @alt non-conforming
RS: failure condition if have @alt and role="presentation"
JS: think they want alt="" for presentational images
JF: authoring tools will always insert alt="something" -- if don't put in value, most will put in alt="" -- presentation role is additional info -- whay if add one remove other?
RS: if marked role="presentation" no reason to add alt="" -- author designated as presentational
JS: problem other way around -- encourage use of role="presentation" less ambiguous than alt=""
<JF> not a hill I'm willing to die on
RS: @alt with role="presenetation" eliminates need for alt="" and includes it in A11y API level -- want to keep presentation from a11y APIs -- stuck with @alt
SF: agree with RS, but in HMTL5 says @alt="" is same as role="presentation" which means that any img with alt="" is equivalent to role="presentation"
RS: either or correct?
SF: prefer to use role="presentaion" because is clearer semantically -- counsel use both or one (role="presentation")
RS: role="presentation" does what we need
SF: role="presentation" is in a11y layer; alt="" will be represented differently in view where images disabled -- if role="presentation" won't treat same way -- need to treat null alt as role="presentation"
JB: could RS and SF take this discussion to email and report back to the group?
RS: will do my best
JB: rescanning 6 issues:
aria-labelleby decision ok?
... role="presentation" needs more info from RS and SF
<scribe> ACTION: Rich and Steve to draft reply to role="presentation" sub-decision for discussion at next week's meeting [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/04/25-text-minutes.html#action02]
JB: please review contents of http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Apr/0287.html and let us know if section beginning "title"...
"Unlike alt="", role="presentation" has the added value of removing the image from the accessibility API object tree, effectively filtering out the image and improving assistive technology performance. Furthermore, a role of resentation is to state the intent of the author in a declarative fashion. For these reasons, role="presentation" should be considered a suitable alternative to...
scribe: requiring alt when it adds no meaningful information to an AT."
SF: agree with what is in email,
have further comments and ideas
... will list what i perceive as problems, add to RS and JB's prose and repost to list
JB: propose your terse addition? link to more detailed explanations fine
SF: just add terse recommendation with links as needed
<scribe> ACTION: Steve - add terse statement about role="presentation" to RS and JB's prose and repost to list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/04/25-text-minutes.html#action03]
JB: Geoff -- please respond to SteveF's posts from the past several days
GF: will do
JB: FIGCAPTION needs more investigation and a report back to group
JB: for FIGCAPTION, would like for us to consense a comprehensive reply to this by next monday's meeting or early in the week, and send these as clarification to the chairs; then see if reclarification is needed; and proceed with formal objections with expedited appeal as needed
JF: when look at 6, 2 critical
ones are meta name="geneartor" and @title as replacement for
... FIGCAPTION and labelledby worth looking at but not "dying" for
... severity: @tltle and generator most severe
JB: looking at comprehensive clarification on what we do not agree with in decsions
JF: getting clarification back may be useful
JB: want to get comprehensive clarification request out as soon as possible
JF: suggesting that as move forward, some things more critical to others
GF: agree with JF -- @title in place of @alt is a SERIOUS problem
<JF> +1 t Geoff
<judy> s/early in the week/early in the week, and send these as clarification to the chairs; then see if reclarification is needed; and proceed with formal objections with expedited appeal as needed
GF: don't want to break implementations -- drove home to everyone to use @alt -- changing that to say @title is ok is going to mess up a lot of work already done-- not a good idea period
JB: draft email has very terse
clarifications -- appears to me there are multiple
misunderstandings in charis' decision
... may be important from POV of priciples
GF: if not mistaken, most SRs
come with there presets defaulting to @alt not @title
... SR users often don't personalize settings
JB: add as comment to section?
JB: want to make 3 comments on other decisions -- location of @alt techniques (WAI CG responding to that -- may be able to review in detail next monday
JB: any objections to waiting for
WAI CG report/draft
... already a formal objection from SF on this
... clarification that may set basis for formal objection
JB: scope includes rejections on
@longdesc, @summary for TABLE, and @poster
... email discussion on each of these -- some very lengthy -- can we prepare parrallell clarification emails
... for @longdesc there is enough material to fill a book -- posibliity of starting more formal dialouge based on terse extraction from @longdesc materails
... poster issue may be easiest to tackle -- JF work with someone to turn into parrallell comment / basis for future formal objection
JF: filed FO on alt poster -- said technical stuff inconsistent, even though requested assistance on technical stuff
JB: would you work with someone (probably JB) to draft next-round clarification and re-draft reply with JB to prepare something for the group to review next monday
JF: sean hayes of MS has offered to help me with technical portion of FO
<gfreed> geoff has to run.
JB: anyone who wants to write a
sentence or 2 on alt poster?
... can we have draft clarification email for monday for voting on monday by group
... assume that people have read pertinent emails
<judy> ACTION: JohnF, judy, sean work on reclarification email on poster-alt (alt-poster) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/04/25-text-minutes.html#action04]
JB: techincally "poster alt" but
should be "alt poster"
... table sujmmary -- draft of clarification email?
GJR: have a CP for summary as element
JB: GJR can you draft email in format of email RS and JB circulated
GJR: yes, will ping if necessary
<scribe> ACTION: clarification email for @summary for HTML WG chairs [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/04/25-text-minutes.html#action05]
... LauraC been in touch -- was going to try to attend last part of call -- may need to try to stablize discussion and get clarification of things at this time that could send from this subgroup to chairs, see what chairs reply and depending on circumstances draft an FO
... may make sense to work on other responses this week to get template and basis for future work
RS: Steve and i will look at section on role="presentation" and @alt
JB: Rich ok to scribe next week?
JF: looking at meta generator to produce terse text; working with JB on alt poster
GJR: @summary for table
JB: scribe volunteer for 2 weeks from today?
MR: won't be on call next week
(bank holiday in UK)
... won't be available for next 2 weeks
JB: meeting next monday, same time, same IRC channel
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/today/this week/ Succeeded: s/@alt validation/@alt and @title validation/ FAILED: s/early in the week/early in the week, and send these as clarification to the chairs; then see if reclarification is needed; and proceed with formal objections with expedited appeal as needed/ Succeeded: s/VERY early in week/early in the week, and send these as clarification to the chairs; then see if reclarification is needed; and proceed with formal objections with expedited appeal as needed/ Succeeded: s/part #text// Found Scribe: gregory_rosmaita Found Scribe: gregory_rosmaita Found ScribeNick: oedipus Default Present: John_Foliot, [IPcaller], +44.208.517.aaaa, Eric_Carlson, +1.617.300.aabb, Rich, Gregory_Rosmaita, Judy, Geoff_Freed, janina, MRanon Present: Eric_Carlson Geoff_Freed Gregory_Rosmaita John_Foliot Judy Lynn_Haldworth Marco_Ranon Rich Steve_Faulkner janina Regrets: laura_carlson Got date from IRC log name: 25 Apr 2011 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2011/04/25-text-minutes.html People with action items: - about add clarification geoff johnf judy presentation rich role statement steve terse WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]