IRC log of text on 2011-05-02

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:27:18 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #text
15:27:18 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:27:20 [judy]
zakim, this will be WAI_PF(Text)
15:27:20 [judy]
meeting: HTML A11Y Text Alternatives Sub-Group Teleconference
15:27:20 [judy]
15:27:20 [judy]
scribe: rich_schwerdtfeger
15:27:20 [Zakim]
ok, judy; I see WAI_PF(Text)11:30AM scheduled to start in 3 minutes
15:27:46 [Zakim]
WAI_PF(Text)11:30AM has now started
15:27:52 [Zakim]
15:27:53 [judy]
agenda+ Action item review (associate actions with "text" product in tracker )
15:27:53 [judy]
agenda+ Change proposal text will be needed for clarification mails and
15:27:53 [judy]
agenda+ Reminder of change proposal format
15:27:53 [judy]
agenda+ Nearing consensus on updated clarification on alt validation? If not what else needed?
15:27:56 [judy]
agenda+ Split some topics out of composite clarification mail for faster processing?
15:27:58 [judy]
agenda+ Status of clarification mail on table summary
15:28:00 [judy]
agenda+ Status of clarification mail on poster alt
15:28:02 [judy]
agenda+ Status of clarification mail on location of normative alt guidance and
15:28:05 [judy]
agenda+ Status of longdesc
15:28:07 [judy]
agenda+ Other business?
15:28:09 [judy]
agenda+ Recap of action items and timelines
15:28:11 [judy]
agenda+ Confirm next meetings; identify scribe for 9 May; identify scribe for following meeting; adjourn.
15:28:19 [oedipus]
regrets: Laura_Carlson,Lynn Holdsworth,Marco_Ranon,
15:28:55 [judy]
zakim, code?
15:28:55 [Zakim]
the conference code is 2119 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+ tel:+44.203.318.0479), judy
15:29:03 [Zakim]
15:29:12 [Zakim]
15:29:35 [janina]
janina has joined #text
15:30:09 [richardschwerdtfe]
richardschwerdtfe has joined #text
15:30:15 [Zakim]
15:30:27 [cyns]
cyns has joined #text
15:30:29 [Zakim]
15:30:32 [oedipus]
zakim, ??P6 is janina
15:30:32 [Zakim]
+janina; got it
15:31:16 [Zakim]
+ +1.650.862.aaaa
15:31:46 [oedipus]
zakim, aaaa is John_Foliot
15:31:46 [Zakim]
+John_Foliot; got it
15:32:12 [judy]
zakim, who's here?
15:32:12 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Gregory_Rosmaita, Cynthia_Shelly, Judy, janina, Rich, John_Foliot
15:32:14 [Zakim]
On IRC I see cyns, richardschwerdtfe, janina, RRSAgent, Zakim, judy, oedipus
15:32:22 [Stevef]
Stevef has joined #text
15:33:09 [MichaelC]
MichaelC has joined #text
15:33:18 [oedipus]
15:33:23 [JF]
JF has joined #text
15:33:25 [richardschwerdtfe]
scribe: Rich
15:33:31 [Zakim]
15:33:36 [Zakim]
15:33:42 [oedipus]
scribenick: rechardschwerdtfe
15:33:48 [oedipus]
scribenick: richardschwerdtfe
15:33:53 [richardschwerdtfe]
zakim, ??IPCaller is Leonie
15:33:53 [Zakim]
sorry, richardschwerdtfe, I do not recognize a party named '??IPCaller'
15:34:11 [oedipus]
zakim, IPcaller is Leonie_Watson
15:34:11 [Zakim]
+Leonie_Watson; got it
15:34:36 [richardschwerdtfe]
15:34:36 [judy]
15:34:43 [richardschwerdtfe]
Topic: Action Item Review
15:35:00 [richardschwerdtfe]
judy: this is the action item collection from last week
15:35:00 [oedipus]
15:35:13 [richardschwerdtfe]
Topic: Clarification mail on summary
15:35:38 [oedipus]
Text "product" Tracker:
15:35:42 [richardschwerdtfe]
judy: janina, would you be available to meet with me to discuss the call
15:35:49 [richardschwerdtfe]
janina: yes, later today
15:36:11 [richardschwerdtfe]
judy: gregory is working on a draft
15:36:28 [richardschwerdtfe]
judy: judy and shawn are working on a poster
15:36:37 [richardschwerdtfe]
judy: John, do you have a draft ready
15:36:38 [oedipus]
15:36:46 [richardschwerdtfe]
JF: on my things to do this week Judy
15:36:57 [richardschwerdtfe]
judy: we can take the table summary first
15:37:07 [oedipus]
@summary draft action item:
15:37:19 [Zakim]
15:37:22 [oedipus]
figcaption and @alt:
15:37:28 [richardschwerdtfe]
Topic: Action item figcaption and the alt discussion
15:37:44 [richardschwerdtfe]
judy: I updated the section on figcaption
15:37:51 [oedipus]
updated figcaption and alt post (judy)
15:37:57 [richardschwerdtfe]
zakim, ??P11 is Stevef
15:37:57 [Zakim]
+Stevef; got it
15:38:14 [richardschwerdtfe]
judy: I think that action item is done.
15:38:35 [oedipus]
role presentation action item (rich and steve)
15:38:39 [richardschwerdtfe]
Topic: role="presentation" rich and Steve
15:39:05 [oedipus]
RS: posted text to list -- read all of maciej'
15:39:09 [oedipus]
s review
15:39:43 [Leonie_Watson]
Leonie_Watson has joined #text
15:39:44 [oedipus]
RS: not brought up was native host lang semantics for HTML5 @alt how impacts a11y api mapping -- if not identical, problemmatic
15:39:57 [oedipus]
s/s review//
15:40:19 [oedipus]
s/read all of maciej'/read all of maciej's review/
15:41:04 [oedipus]
RS: issue from chairs' review -- was not made clear that reason need to use iinterchangeably (diff from html4) -- alt="" is equivalent of role="presentation"
15:41:25 [Stevef]
15:41:28 [oedipus]
RS: host language defines a11y api mapping -- didn't specificalloy say in HTML4 that image object is removed from a11y API tree
15:41:42 [oedipus]
CS: point of contention -- IE doesn't do that and doesn't think it should
15:41:51 [janina]
Rich's post is at:
15:41:52 [janina]
15:42:35 [oedipus]
15:43:54 [judy]
zakim, open agenda item 1
15:43:54 [Zakim]
'item\ 1' does not match any agenda item, judy
15:44:04 [richardschwerdtfe]
15:44:04 [judy]
zakim, open agendum 1
15:44:45 [richardschwerdtfe]
Topic: Change Proposal Alt text
15:44:51 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "Action item review (associate actions with "text" product in tracker
15:44:54 [Zakim]
... )" taken up [from judy]
15:45:23 [richardschwerdtfe]
close agenda 1
15:45:45 [richardschwerdtfe]
Zakim, takeup agenda 2
15:45:45 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'takeup agenda 2', richardschwerdtfe
15:45:57 [richardschwerdtfe]
zakim, take up agenda 2
15:45:57 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "Change proposal text will be needed for clarification mails and
15:45:59 [Zakim]
..." taken up [from judy]
15:46:24 [richardschwerdtfe]
judy: this is an email from Sam
15:46:42 [richardschwerdtfe]
judy: on Friday Paul Cotton sent an email asking what we are trying to do?
15:46:52 [paulc]
paulc has joined #text
15:47:16 [oedipus]
paulc query:
15:47:34 [richardschwerdtfe]
judy: We are preparing an email and depending on the response to those we will create a formal objection with expedited appeals
15:47:41 [richardschwerdtfe]
judy: I prefer we coordinate together on this
15:48:20 [richardschwerdtfe]
judy: Sam replied, in the shared interest of expediency and you are creating clarification please produce a change proposal at the same time.
15:48:29 [richardschwerdtfe]
Judy: this will save us some time
15:49:18 [richardschwerdtfe]
judy: Sam then sent another mail saying that he would also recommend that instead of calling our responses clarification emails then we would be stating we are bringing new information
15:49:33 [richardschwerdtfe]
judy: I offered suggestions to help the chairs work with the people.
15:50:01 [richardschwerdtfe]
judy: Are there questions so far on this?
15:50:33 [oedipus]
SamRuby: "To help speed things up, the response undoubtedly would be that all requests to reopen an issue need to be accompanied by a change proposal:" from
15:50:57 [richardschwerdtfe]
judy: he was saying that if you do go the new information route explain that it is new information.
15:51:14 [richardschwerdtfe]
judy: any questions?
15:52:02 [richardschwerdtfe]
janina: you can't just say they did not have all the facts
15:52:16 [richardschwerdtfe]
janina: they did not make the correct decision based on the facts they had
15:52:18 [Zakim]
15:52:36 [Zakim]
15:52:37 [richardschwerdtfe]
cynthia: that is an argument you can't win whether you are right or not
15:53:35 [judy]
s/I offered suggestions to help the chairs work with the people./Janina and I also mentioned our reply to Paul that we were hoping to work with the chairs on this./
15:53:50 [richardschwerdtfe]
cynthia: there was a point where Paul was a bit surprised
15:53:52 [oedipus]
RS: function of title and alt text being different? that was what paul identified as "new information"
15:54:01 [richardschwerdtfe]
rich: yes that is the difference between alt and title
15:54:34 [richardschwerdtfe]
judy: it did not occur to us that those making the decision were aware of the fundamental differences between alt and title
15:54:57 [richardschwerdtfe]
judy: is it ok if we have a mix of clarification and new information?
15:54:59 [oedipus]
JF: what may be clarification for us is new info for others
15:55:07 [richardschwerdtfe]
john: ok.
15:55:29 [richardschwerdtfe]
Resolution: no objection to doing a mix of clarification and new information
15:55:54 [judy]
zakim, close item 2
15:55:54 [Zakim]
agendum 2, Change proposal text will be needed for clarification mails and
15:55:56 [Zakim]
..., closed
15:55:58 [Zakim]
I see 10 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
15:56:00 [Zakim]
3. Reminder of change proposal format [from judy]
15:56:28 [judy]
zakim, take up item 3
15:56:29 [Zakim]
agendum 3. "Reminder of change proposal format" taken up [from judy]
15:57:10 [richardschwerdtfe]
scribe; rich
15:57:24 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate oedipus
15:57:28 [richardschwerdtfe]
Judy: i think we can deal with each of these items briefly
15:57:51 [richardschwerdtfe]
judy: there are 4 sub bullets that can be applied without ambiguity
15:58:09 [richardschwerdtfe]
judy: I am assuming that we would be doing either the first or the third bullet
15:58:22 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate oedipus
15:58:37 [richardschwerdtfe]
judy: we need to make the chairs' lives simple
15:58:50 [richardschwerdtfe]
judy: any additional thoughts or concerns?
15:59:01 [richardschwerdtfe]
judy: some of these are not ready
16:00:21 [richardschwerdtfe]
judy: we have a suggestion from Sam on the list that we add change proposals to clarify what we are saying in our clarification emails.
16:00:31 [richardschwerdtfe]
judy: any objections to doing that in a one step process?
16:00:52 [richardschwerdtfe]
jf: I do have a question about alt text. I don't know if it makes sense to disambiguate that.
16:00:58 [richardschwerdtfe]
judy: that is agenda item 5
16:01:24 [richardschwerdtfe]
judy: agenda item 5 has to do with some of our clarification mails to proceed at different paces.
16:01:34 [richardschwerdtfe]
judy: we have different shared rationals
16:02:08 [oedipus]
plus 1 to saving time
16:02:10 [richardschwerdtfe]
judy: for the clarification mails that are ready any objection to doing this as a one step process: (clarification plus change proposals)
16:02:45 [richardschwerdtfe]
Resolution: no objection to having a one step process that include a clariification plus change proposal together
16:02:46 [judy]
zakim, close item 3
16:02:46 [Zakim]
agendum 3, Reminder of change proposal format, closed
16:02:48 [Zakim]
I see 9 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
16:02:49 [Zakim]
4. Nearing consensus on updated clarification on alt validation? If not what else needed? [from judy]
16:02:51 [judy]
zakim, take up item 4
16:02:51 [Zakim]
agendum 4. "Nearing consensus on updated clarification on alt validation? If not what else needed?" taken up
16:02:55 [Zakim]
... [from judy]
16:03:14 [richardschwerdtfe]
Topic: Are we reaching concensus on alt validation?
16:03:47 [richardschwerdtfe]
judy: I think that we may have some hefty topics to discuss among those.
16:04:33 [richardschwerdtfe]
judy: there are notes that have not been rolled into this yet. I suggest we walk through it section by section. There are 4 sections of the 6 subdecisions on this.
16:04:44 [richardschwerdtfe]
judy: we only have issues with 4 or less of the decisions
16:04:57 [richardschwerdtfe]
judy: let's walk through these one by one
16:05:28 [richardschwerdtfe]
judy: The first piece of this is on role="presentation" does not make missing alt conforming.
16:05:39 [richardschwerdtfe]
judy: there was replaced email on this
16:05:47 [richardschwerdtfe]
judy: there were questions that lisa asked
16:06:31 [richardschwerdtfe]
judy: if you look at this section of the text, there was an initial block of text that was representative of text between rich and john and there was a comment from Leif
16:06:49 [richardschwerdtfe]
john: I think it was more rich and steve were working on this
16:07:11 [richardschwerdtfe]
judy: we have a short window on this
16:07:15 [oedipus]
JB: may have short window -- don't want to let questions linger
16:07:55 [judy]
16:08:12 [oedipus]
RS: talked to SteveF about this -- what hadn't looked at was the a11y api mappings are such that if have alt="" equal semantics for role="presentation" -- in ARIA removes object from API tree -- thought same for alt="", but now Cyns says microsoft has problem with that
16:08:26 [oedipus]
CS: general discomfort with removing things from tree
16:08:45 [oedipus]
SF: doesn't remove anything from tree if role="presentation"
16:08:58 [oedipus]
RS: what do with layout tables? mark with role="presentation"?
16:10:13 [oedipus]
SF: not surprised that alt="" is not removed from A11y tree -- in WAI-ARIA does remove stuff from tree when marked role="presentation"
16:10:22 [oedipus]
CS: MS never thought removing from tree a good idea
16:10:29 [oedipus]
CS: not 100% positive -- will check
16:10:43 [oedipus]
RS: exception in IE news to me
16:10:56 [oedipus]
SF: role="presentation" on image removes img from a11y tree
16:11:11 [oedipus]
SF: does alt="" remove from a11y tree -- i would say "no" -- hasn't been implemented yet
16:11:28 [oedipus]
JF: why does MS consider this a bad idea?
16:11:41 [oedipus]
CS: removing things from tree that complicates things in variety of scenarios
16:11:48 [oedipus]
JB: may be something need to deal with anyway
16:12:01 [oedipus]
JB: focus on what we want to say -- clarification or new info?
16:12:40 [oedipus]
SF: can confirm that role="presentation" to img element removes from a11y tree
16:12:51 [oedipus]
JS: what about legacy viewing HTML5 page?
16:13:11 [oedipus]
SF: if UA HTML5-compatible, won't be in a11y tree
16:13:29 [oedipus]
JF: what happens if img src="foo.jpg" role="presentation" what happens in IE8?
16:13:38 [oedipus]
JS: IE6?
16:13:59 [Stevef]
16:14:24 [oedipus]
CS: IE8 supports aria -- IE6 doesn't -- get image with src and no alt -- if AT goes through DOM, AT can grab role="presentation" if use DOM-aware AT
16:14:30 [oedipus]
ack st
16:15:06 [oedipus]
SF: for UAs that don't support ARIA would be ignore alt=""
16:15:18 [oedipus]
JF: if image used inside link, not going to have role=presentation
16:15:33 [judy]
16:15:36 [oedipus]
SF: right -- no downside then for older UAs if AT uses hueristics to filter out images without atl
16:15:41 [oedipus]
16:16:00 [oedipus]
SF: if no alt attribute, will ignore unless user sets to read all images
16:16:15 [oedipus]
CS: role="presentation" not there for older UAs
16:16:27 [oedipus]
JS: strenghtens our argument
16:16:39 [Stevef]
16:16:39 [oedipus]
JS: alt="" redundant and unnecessary
16:16:46 [oedipus]
CS: MS says "use both"
16:16:49 [oedipus]
ack ste
16:17:25 [oedipus]
SF: main argument against role=presentation is in GUI UAs do something different if alt="" and IMG without alt text
16:17:46 [JF]
16:17:48 [oedipus]
SF: alt="" is a flag to some UAs to render image differently than when there is no alt text provided by author
16:18:01 [oedipus]
JB: like to move towards action item to get this written up
16:18:15 [oedipus]
CS: is it really so terrible to require both alt="" and role="presentation"
16:18:21 [richardschwerdtfe]
16:18:22 [oedipus]
ack cy
16:18:41 [oedipus]
JF: implementation issue with browsers according to SF -- their problem, not ours
16:19:18 [oedipus]
SF: our problems are their problems -- assuming that ARIA should not affect layering violations -- don't want to use ARIA to fix for non-api a11y stuff
16:19:45 [judy]
[judy suggests that we present the browser implementation issues/differences as new information, within our clarification]
16:20:13 [Leonie_Watson]
JB: Would someone who has been following this discussion be willing to write this up?
16:20:48 [JF]
RS: not aware that browser vendors do not want to provide accommodation to aria for renedering
16:20:59 [Leonie_Watson]
/me No problem. Over to John...
16:20:59 [JF]
SF : some browsers will render the lack of image different
16:21:13 [oedipus]
oedipus has joined #text
16:21:20 [JF]
if uses alt="" won't show anuy image at all, if they omit then browser shows that an image would exist
16:21:26 [judy]
16:21:39 [JF]
this is how the browsers do things - alt="" is a flag to make image visible or not visible
16:21:52 [JF]
theydon't want to make role=presentation equal the same as ""
16:22:08 [JF]
SF don't want to base grafical rendering on ARIA Roles
16:22:27 [JF]
SF: it goes back to the layering issue
16:22:46 [JF]
they don't want ARIA to use affect anything but a11y APIs
16:22:53 [janina]
"layering violation" is a fancy term for "not invented here"
16:23:00 [judy]
ack j
16:23:08 [JF]
RS: to be honest, we didn't have these concepts 10 yrs ago, so using alt="" was the best we had then
16:23:23 [JF]
this is no longer a valid justification: ARIA has a section in HTML5
16:23:44 [JF]
JB: we have a lot to still cover - can we move this to the list?
16:23:54 [JF]
RS: there is a F2F this week
16:24:40 [JF]
JB: cyns and rich to continue discussing
16:24:59 [Stevef]
text of decision for role=presentation
16:25:25 [Stevef]
16:25:30 [judy]
We need to recheck this mail within this section == Should it be permitted to omit alt when role=presentation is specified? ==
16:26:01 [JF]
JB: need to revies maciej 's note
16:26:07 [JF]
are there other issues that need to be discussed
16:26:53 [Stevef]
16:26:59 [JF]
SF: point out that reformatted decision as html rich as blog post
16:27:59 [judy]
[judy thanks steve and asks if Rich and Cynthia please focus their attention on Steve's text rather than my mail]
16:28:01 [JF]
JB: asks that rich and cyns look at Steve's text when discussing this iissue
16:28:25 [JF]
JB: 1 more question on role="presentation"
16:28:59 [JF]
if by next monday we get more clarification and consensus, what about the next steps towards Change proposal?
16:29:05 [JF]
one item is actual spec text
16:29:13 [JF]
how hard would that be?
16:29:55 [JF]
SF: good question - for the @title issue it was pretty straightforward
16:30:10 [JF]
JB: so for @ title it would only take a few hours to write?
16:30:14 [JF]
SF: yes
16:30:39 [JF]
JB: for the role="pres" is there anyone else who could take this as a work item?
16:31:03 [JF]
JB: could SF take this on as well?
16:31:06 [JF]
SF: yes
16:31:14 [JF]
16:31:38 [JF]
CS: Did we take the time to decide if any of these are worth not fighting for?
16:31:49 [JF]
JB: yes, we did, and are taking this on 2 levels
16:31:57 [JF]
we looked at the initial 6
16:32:16 [JF]
we believe that this was one that was significant to address
16:32:29 [JF]
it may not require a 'fight' but rather clarrification
16:32:41 [JF]
figcaption might be more significant
16:33:09 [oedipus]
scribenick: oedipus
16:33:09 [JF]
ack jf
16:33:20 [oedipus]
ack cyn
16:33:23 [oedipus]
ack ste
16:33:25 [oedipus]
ack rich
16:33:27 [Stevef]
ack Stevef
16:33:51 [oedipus]
JB: want to review next section of draft text from Judy
16:34:02 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate oedipus
16:34:04 [judy]
16:34:20 [oedipus]
JB: straw proposal to get a lot of discussion going
16:34:44 [richardschwerdtfe]
scribe: rich
16:34:54 [oedipus]
JB: second section to consider is meta name="generator"
16:35:00 [judy]
look for == On the Co-Chairs' decision on meta name=generator ==
16:35:08 [richardschwerdtfe]
judy: on the second section on meta generator
16:35:22 [richardschwerdtfe]
judy: there has been updated text from Leif who was going to try and join today
16:35:35 [richardschwerdtfe]
judy: there was a bunch more discussion
16:35:51 [richardschwerdtfe]
judy: could anyone describe where we are on that
16:36:09 [richardschwerdtfe]
JF: I have got slammed last week. there has been discussion but no meeting of minds
16:36:23 [Stevef]
16:36:27 [oedipus]
i/JB: may have short window/scribenick: oedipus/
16:36:32 [richardschwerdtfe]
JF: if I am to understand gregory's point
16:37:18 [gfreed]
gfreed has joined #text
16:37:43 [oedipus]
ack ste
16:37:46 [richardschwerdtfe]
judy: my core question is how essential is the core issue that leif and benjamin are generating
16:37:54 [JF]
+1 to SF
16:38:06 [richardschwerdtfe]
steve: I had not looked at the generator question much
16:38:26 [judy]
16:38:47 [oedipus]
i/RS: not aware that browser vendors do not want to provide accommodation/scribenick: JF/
16:38:49 [richardschwerdtfe]
steve; this generator flag is a flag that is used by just under a third of web content and it is not used for that purpose. Unless they get rid of the flag. ...
16:39:07 [Zakim]
+ +1.617.365.aabb
16:39:15 [oedipus]
<meta generator="Gregory J. Rosmaita" ...>
16:39:15 [richardschwerdtfe]
jf: to do this it shuts up the validators
16:39:35 [richardschwerdtfe]
steve: they are using this flag that up to now it shuts up the generators for alt
16:39:41 [richardschwerdtfe]
steve: nobody bought into that
16:40:04 [richardschwerdtfe]
steve: we are talking about millions of pages
16:40:20 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate oedipus
16:40:21 [richardschwerdtfe]
cynthia: if they want a magic token they should make a new one
16:40:34 [richardschwerdtfe]
judy: it does not weaken our interest in restoring this
16:40:44 [Laura]
Laura has joined #text
16:40:52 [richardschwerdtfe]
steve: it may be unlikely that they are going to take it away altogether
16:41:08 [janina]
16:41:12 [janina]
16:41:14 [Laura]
16:41:26 [richardschwerdtfe]
steve: software has to opt in to this. Why would you have a general meta flag rather than stating you just don't want to validate alt?
16:41:28 [oedipus]
i/judy: on the second section on meta generator/scribenick: richardschwerdtfe/
16:41:40 [richardschwerdtfe]
steve: this is the only flag that stops validation
16:41:51 [Zakim]
16:41:55 [oedipus]
zakim, aaaa is Geoff
16:41:55 [Zakim]
sorry, oedipus, I do not recognize a party named 'aaaa'
16:42:08 [oedipus]
zakim, aabb is Geoff
16:42:08 [Zakim]
+Geoff; got it
16:42:15 [richardschwerdtfe]
judy: on this issue of the meta generator how do we zero in on a solution for this?
16:42:26 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate oedipus
16:42:31 [richardschwerdtfe]
judy: is this something that if you chat with Leif you could zero in on the issue
16:42:33 [JF]
16:42:41 [richardschwerdtfe]
judy: we don't want to boil the ocean
16:43:00 [richardschwerdtfe]
steve: to me these are valid arguments for what is there being tossed out
16:43:15 [richardschwerdtfe]
steve: John would be a better person to conduct it with
16:43:44 [richardschwerdtfe]
janina: it seems to me that our issue is that we don't provide a correct alt on images
16:43:57 [richardschwerdtfe]
janina: it is being treated as a get out of jail free card
16:43:58 [Leonie_Watson]
+1 to Janina
16:44:03 [oedipus]
plus 1 to JS
16:44:19 [oedipus]
ack jan
16:44:23 [oedipus]
ack JF
16:44:25 [richardschwerdtfe]
john: I will spend some time this week. The text Leif has been put together .... it has become verbose
16:44:45 [richardschwerdtfe]
john: I will work with Leif to bring this to s discussion page that we can work off of
16:45:07 [richardschwerdtfe]
john: you are not in that face to face next week. This has to do with I am not in PF yet
16:45:16 [richardschwerdtfe]
john: I will meet janina at the airport tomorrow
16:45:26 [oedipus]
ack cyn
16:45:52 [richardschwerdtfe]
cynthia: there are 2 scenarios. email and ...
16:45:54 [oedipus]
limitations of tools should NOT shape HTML5
16:45:55 [JF]
16:46:17 [richardschwerdtfe]
cynthia: I don't see the need to validate email
16:46:22 [richardschwerdtfe]
judy: there is a use case coming
16:46:40 [richardschwerdtfe]
rich: the use case is coming
16:46:42 [oedipus]
private verus public email -- can ascertain use case for public email (emessages from gov't, orgs, businesses)
16:47:14 [richardschwerdtfe]
cynthia: it is a design tool discussion. you don't put prompts in peoples' faces
16:47:38 [richardschwerdtfe]
cynthia: WYSIWYG tools is the next piece of accessibility work
16:47:51 [richardschwerdtfe]
judy: Cynthia can you keep watching the dialog on this?
16:48:29 [judy]
[judy suggests capturing and parking these issues somewhere. any good somewhere to capture and park them?]
16:48:31 [richardschwerdtfe]
JF: I just want to add Cynthia that the meta generator will have the unintended result of not being able to use the validation tools
16:48:51 [richardschwerdtfe]
judy: I want to move to another issue
16:49:09 [richardschwerdtfe]
cynthia: who is working on meta generator and when are they talking?
16:49:12 [judy]
We need to recheck this mail within this section == On the Co-Chair's decision on the presence of figcaption ==
16:49:18 [richardschwerdtfe]
judy: I am pasting in the next place to look at
16:49:35 [judy]
look again please at l within this section == On the Co-Chair's decision on the presence of figcaption ==
16:50:00 [Stevef]
16:50:06 [JF]
ack JF
16:50:13 [Zakim]
16:50:19 [richardschwerdtfe]
judy: in the absence of protests we may be heading in the right direction
16:50:50 [richardschwerdtfe]
judy: I think this one maps against an issue regarding support for native accessibility or legacy issues
16:51:10 [Zakim]
16:51:15 [richardschwerdtfe]
judy: my discussions with people is that their is not a clear position on the task force
16:51:29 [richardschwerdtfe]
zakim, ??P11 is Stevef
16:51:29 [Zakim]
+Stevef; got it
16:51:42 [richardschwerdtfe]
judy: Cynthia, is this a new topic?
16:51:48 [richardschwerdtfe]
cynthia: yes
16:52:39 [richardschwerdtfe]
Stevef: extensive meetings with the waicg, where figcaption is an exception for the case where we agreed you could have a figcaption without an alt
16:53:14 [richardschwerdtfe]
janina: I don't see figcaption in that document we produced.
16:53:52 [richardschwerdtfe]
judy: I recall the legend stuff. In preparation for my response where figcaption is extremely different from an alt.
16:53:58 [Zakim]
16:53:59 [oedipus]
note: old HTML5 verbiage LEGEND is now HTML5 FIGCAPTION
16:54:18 [Zakim]
16:54:20 [judy]
[steve clarifies that figcaption was called figlegend at that time]
16:54:34 [richardschwerdtfe]
Stevef: there are many circumstances where you have a graph or a chart where you provide the text alternative. you want to identify there is an image there
16:54:48 [Laura]
have to drop off now
16:54:59 [richardschwerdtfe]
Stevef: if you provide the text alternative outside the alt you supply the alt for the label
16:55:17 [richardschwerdtfe]
judy: I do recall the discussion about legends
16:55:26 [richardschwerdtfe]
judy: I suggest we take this off line
16:55:41 [richardschwerdtfe]
judy: let's see if we get some agreement.
16:55:56 [richardschwerdtfe]
judy: on the appropriateness question that is one issue.
16:56:07 [richardschwerdtfe]
judy: the legacy issue would factor into this as well
16:56:34 [oedipus]
example of CAPTION versus ALT versus LONGDESC:
16:56:36 [Zakim]
16:56:42 [richardschwerdtfe]
cynthia: some of the legacy issues are better handled in HTML 5
16:56:45 [richardschwerdtfe]
16:57:25 [richardschwerdtfe]
judy: what I would like to do is figure out the remaining status on each section
16:57:36 [richardschwerdtfe]
judy: would you be able to do a joint update on the table summary?
16:57:39 [richardschwerdtfe]
gregory: yes
16:57:45 [Laura]
Issue 30 Change Proposal: Include longdesc in HTML5:
16:57:52 [richardschwerdtfe]
judy: john update on table summary?
16:57:56 [richardschwerdtfe]
JF: yes
16:58:21 [richardschwerdtfe]
judy: the question of splitting out these mails, they may be better handled discretely
16:58:28 [oedipus]
stevef, prose comparing longdesc and alt with caption/figcaption available at
16:58:36 [JF]
+1 to split out
16:58:38 [richardschwerdtfe]
judy: do people have problem splitting these up and taking them on
16:58:45 [oedipus]
plus 1 to split
16:58:45 [Leonie_Watson]
+1 to splitting
16:58:46 [richardschwerdtfe]
16:58:49 [judy]
16:58:50 [Laura]
16:58:52 [richardschwerdtfe]
Resolution: No objection to splitting
16:59:21 [richardschwerdtfe]
Judy: we need to get the essential issues left
16:59:42 [richardschwerdtfe]
Judy: the question of where the normative alt guidance suggests?
17:00:01 [oedipus]
17:00:09 [oedipus]
ack rich
17:00:11 [richardschwerdtfe]
ack richardschwerdtfe
17:00:15 [oedipus]
ack stevef
17:00:17 [oedipus]
ack Cyn
17:00:17 [Stevef]
ack Stevef
17:00:24 [richardschwerdtfe]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:00:24 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate richardschwerdtfe
17:00:31 [Zakim]
17:00:47 [Leonie_Watson]
/me I'll scribe, with the caveat I may be a little late next week.
17:00:56 [Zakim]
17:01:07 [Zakim]
17:01:17 [Zakim]
17:01:18 [Zakim]
17:01:19 [Zakim]
17:01:19 [Zakim]
17:01:21 [Zakim]
17:01:21 [Zakim]
17:01:25 [oedipus]
JB: scribe next week (May 9) leonie watson -- if late, GJR will scribe until LW ready
17:01:28 [janina]
janina has left #text
17:01:29 [Zakim]
17:01:30 [Zakim]
WAI_PF(Text)11:30AM has ended
17:01:31 [Zakim]
Attendees were Gregory_Rosmaita, Cynthia_Shelly, Judy, Rich, janina, +1.650.862.aaaa, John_Foliot, Michael_Cooper, Leonie_Watson, Stevef, +1.617.365.aabb, Laura_Carlson, Geoff
17:01:31 [oedipus]
zakim, please part
17:01:31 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #text
17:01:38 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate oedipus
17:03:06 [oedipus]
present- +1.650.862.aaaa, +1.617.365.aabb
17:03:13 [oedipus]
regrets- Laura_Carlson
17:03:17 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate oedipus
17:09:39 [oedipus]
i/RS: posted text to list -- read all of maciej's review/scribenick: oedipus/
17:10:30 [oedipus]
i/judy: this is an email from Sam/scribenick: richardschwerdtfe/
17:10:33 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate oedipus
17:22:33 [richardschwerdtfe]
richardschwerdtfe has left #text