15:27:18 RRSAgent has joined #text 15:27:18 logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/05/02-text-irc 15:27:20 zakim, this will be WAI_PF(Text) 15:27:20 meeting: HTML A11Y Text Alternatives Sub-Group Teleconference 15:27:20 chair: judy_brewer 15:27:20 scribe: rich_schwerdtfeger 15:27:20 ok, judy; I see WAI_PF(Text)11:30AM scheduled to start in 3 minutes 15:27:46 WAI_PF(Text)11:30AM has now started 15:27:52 +Gregory_Rosmaita 15:27:53 agenda+ Action item review http://www.w3.org/2011/04/25-text-minutes.html#ActionSummary (associate actions with "text" product in tracker http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/open ) 15:27:53 agenda+ Change proposal text will be needed for clarification mails http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Apr/0417.html and http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Apr/0421.html 15:27:53 agenda+ Reminder of change proposal format http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html#change-proposal 15:27:53 agenda+ Nearing consensus on updated clarification on alt validation? If not what else needed? http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Apr/0423.html 15:27:56 agenda+ Split some topics out of composite clarification mail for faster processing? 15:27:58 agenda+ Status of clarification mail on table summary 15:28:00 agenda+ Status of clarification mail on poster alt 15:28:02 agenda+ Status of clarification mail on location of normative alt guidance http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0453.html and http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Apr/0175.html 15:28:05 agenda+ Status of longdesc 15:28:07 agenda+ Other business? 15:28:09 agenda+ Recap of action items and timelines 15:28:11 agenda+ Confirm next meetings; identify scribe for 9 May; identify scribe for following meeting; adjourn. 15:28:19 regrets: Laura_Carlson,Lynn Holdsworth,Marco_Ranon, 15:28:55 zakim, code? 15:28:55 the conference code is 2119 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.26.46.79.03 tel:+44.203.318.0479), judy 15:29:03 +Cynthia_Shelly 15:29:12 +Judy 15:29:35 janina has joined #text 15:30:09 richardschwerdtfe has joined #text 15:30:15 +??P6 15:30:27 cyns has joined #text 15:30:29 +Rich 15:30:32 zakim, ??P6 is janina 15:30:32 +janina; got it 15:31:16 + +1.650.862.aaaa 15:31:46 zakim, aaaa is John_Foliot 15:31:46 +John_Foliot; got it 15:32:12 zakim, who's here? 15:32:12 On the phone I see Gregory_Rosmaita, Cynthia_Shelly, Judy, janina, Rich, John_Foliot 15:32:14 On IRC I see cyns, richardschwerdtfe, janina, RRSAgent, Zakim, judy, oedipus 15:32:22 Stevef has joined #text 15:33:09 MichaelC has joined #text 15:33:18 agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Apr/0424.html 15:33:23 JF has joined #text 15:33:25 scribe: Rich 15:33:31 +Michael_Cooper 15:33:36 +[IPcaller] 15:33:42 scribenick: rechardschwerdtfe 15:33:48 scribenick: richardschwerdtfe 15:33:53 zakim, ??IPCaller is Leonie 15:33:53 sorry, richardschwerdtfe, I do not recognize a party named '??IPCaller' 15:34:11 zakim, IPcaller is Leonie_Watson 15:34:11 +Leonie_Watson; got it 15:34:36 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Apr/0424.html 15:34:36 http://www.w3.org/2011/04/25-text-minutes.html#ActionSummary 15:34:43 Topic: Action Item Review 15:35:00 judy: this is the action item collection from last week 15:35:00 http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/products/5 15:35:13 Topic: Clarification mail on summary 15:35:38 Text "product" Tracker: http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/products/5 15:35:42 judy: janina, would you be available to meet with me to discuss the call 15:35:49 janina: yes, later today 15:36:11 judy: gregory is working on a draft 15:36:28 judy: judy and shawn are working on a poster 15:36:37 judy: John, do you have a draft ready 15:36:38 http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/124 15:36:46 JF: on my things to do this week Judy 15:36:57 judy: we can take the table summary first 15:37:07 @summary draft action item: http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/125 15:37:19 +??P11 15:37:22 figcaption and @alt: http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/121 15:37:28 Topic: Action item figcaption and the alt discussion 15:37:44 judy: I updated the section on figcaption 15:37:51 updated figcaption and alt post (judy) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Apr/0423.html 15:37:57 zakim, ??P11 is Stevef 15:37:57 +Stevef; got it 15:38:14 judy: I think that action item is done. 15:38:35 role presentation action item (rich and steve) http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/122 15:38:39 Topic: role="presentation" rich and Steve 15:39:05 RS: posted text to list -- read all of maciej' 15:39:09 s review 15:39:43 Leonie_Watson has joined #text 15:39:44 RS: not brought up was native host lang semantics for HTML5 @alt how impacts a11y api mapping -- if not identical, problemmatic 15:39:57 s/s review// 15:40:19 s/read all of maciej'/read all of maciej's review/ 15:41:04 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 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011May/0008.html 15:41:28 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 CS: point of contention -- IE doesn't do that and doesn't think it should 15:41:51 Rich's post is at: 15:41:52 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011May/0008.html 15:42:35 s/specificalloy/specifically/ 15:43:54 zakim, open agenda item 1 15:43:54 'item\ 1' does not match any agenda item, judy 15:44:04 agenda? 15:44:04 zakim, open agendum 1 15:44:45 Topic: Change Proposal Alt text 15:44:51 agendum 1. "Action item review http://www.w3.org/2011/04/25-text-minutes.html#ActionSummary (associate actions with "text" product in tracker 15:44:54 ... http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/open )" taken up [from judy] 15:45:23 close agenda 1 15:45:45 Zakim, takeup agenda 2 15:45:45 I don't understand 'takeup agenda 2', richardschwerdtfe 15:45:57 zakim, take up agenda 2 15:45:57 agendum 2. "Change proposal text will be needed for clarification mails http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Apr/0417.html and 15:45:59 ... http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Apr/0421.html" taken up [from judy] 15:46:24 judy: this is an email from Sam 15:46:42 judy: on Friday Paul Cotton sent an email asking what we are trying to do? 15:46:52 paulc has joined #text 15:47:16 paulc query: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Apr/0415.html 15:47:34 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 judy: I prefer we coordinate together on this 15:48:20 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 Judy: this will save us some time 15:49:18 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 judy: I offered suggestions to help the chairs work with the people. 15:50:01 judy: Are there questions so far on this? 15:50:33 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: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11447#c3" from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Apr/0421.html 15:50:57 judy: he was saying that if you do go the new information route explain that it is new information. 15:51:14 judy: any questions? 15:52:02 janina: you can't just say they did not have all the facts 15:52:16 janina: they did not make the correct decision based on the facts they had 15:52:18 -John_Foliot 15:52:36 +John_Foliot 15:52:37 cynthia: that is an argument you can't win whether you are right or not 15:53:35 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 cynthia: there was a point where Paul was a bit surprised 15:53:52 RS: function of title and alt text being different? that was what paul identified as "new information" 15:54:01 rich: yes that is the difference between alt and title 15:54:34 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 judy: is it ok if we have a mix of clarification and new information? 15:54:59 JF: what may be clarification for us is new info for others 15:55:07 john: ok. 15:55:29 Resolution: no objection to doing a mix of clarification and new information 15:55:54 zakim, close item 2 15:55:54 agendum 2, Change proposal text will be needed for clarification mails http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Apr/0417.html and 15:55:56 ... http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Apr/0421.html, closed 15:55:58 I see 10 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 15:56:00 3. Reminder of change proposal format http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html#change-proposal [from judy] 15:56:28 zakim, take up item 3 15:56:29 agendum 3. "Reminder of change proposal format http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html#change-proposal" taken up [from judy] 15:57:10 scribe; rich 15:57:24 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/05/02-text-minutes.html oedipus 15:57:28 Judy: i think we can deal with each of these items briefly 15:57:51 judy: there are 4 sub bullets that can be applied without ambiguity 15:58:09 judy: I am assuming that we would be doing either the first or the third bullet 15:58:22 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/05/02-text-minutes.html oedipus 15:58:37 judy: we need to make the chairs' lives simple 15:58:50 judy: any additional thoughts or concerns? 15:59:01 judy: some of these are not ready 16:00:21 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 judy: any objections to doing that in a one step process? 16:00:52 jf: I do have a question about alt text. I don't know if it makes sense to disambiguate that. 16:00:58 judy: that is agenda item 5 16:01:24 judy: agenda item 5 has to do with some of our clarification mails to proceed at different paces. 16:01:34 judy: we have different shared rationals 16:02:08 plus 1 to saving time 16:02:10 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 Resolution: no objection to having a one step process that include a clariification plus change proposal together 16:02:46 zakim, close item 3 16:02:46 agendum 3, Reminder of change proposal format http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html#change-proposal, closed 16:02:48 I see 9 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 16:02:49 4. Nearing consensus on updated clarification on alt validation? If not what else needed? http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Apr/0423.html [from judy] 16:02:51 zakim, take up item 4 16:02:51 agendum 4. "Nearing consensus on updated clarification on alt validation? If not what else needed? http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Apr/0423.html" taken up 16:02:55 ... [from judy] 16:03:14 Topic: Are we reaching concensus on alt validation? 16:03:47 judy: I think that we may have some hefty topics to discuss among those. 16:04:33 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 judy: we only have issues with 4 or less of the decisions 16:04:57 judy: let's walk through these one by one 16:05:28 judy: The first piece of this is on role="presentation" does not make missing alt conforming. 16:05:39 judy: there was replaced email on this 16:05:47 judy: there were questions that lisa asked 16:06:31 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 john: I think it was more rich and steve were working on this 16:07:11 judy: we have a short window on this 16:07:15 JB: may have short window -- don't want to let questions linger 16:07:55 s/lisa/leif 16:08:12 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 CS: general discomfort with removing things from tree 16:08:45 SF: doesn't remove anything from tree if role="presentation" 16:08:58 RS: what do with layout tables? mark with role="presentation"? 16:10:13 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 CS: MS never thought removing from tree a good idea 16:10:29 CS: not 100% positive -- will check 16:10:43 RS: exception in IE news to me 16:10:56 SF: role="presentation" on image removes img from a11y tree 16:11:11 SF: does alt="" remove from a11y tree -- i would say "no" -- hasn't been implemented yet 16:11:28 JF: why does MS consider this a bad idea? 16:11:41 CS: removing things from tree that complicates things in variety of scenarios 16:11:48 JB: may be something need to deal with anyway 16:12:01 JB: focus on what we want to say -- clarification or new info? 16:12:40 SF: can confirm that role="presentation" to img element removes from a11y tree 16:12:51 JS: what about legacy viewing HTML5 page? 16:13:11 SF: if UA HTML5-compatible, won't be in a11y tree 16:13:29 JF: what happens if img src="foo.jpg" role="presentation" what happens in IE8? 16:13:38 JS: IE6? 16:13:59 q+ 16:14:24 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 ack st 16:15:06 SF: for UAs that don't support ARIA would be ignore alt="" 16:15:18 JF: if image used inside link, not going to have role=presentation 16:15:33 q? 16:15:36 SF: right -- no downside then for older UAs if AT uses hueristics to filter out images without atl 16:15:41 s/atl/alt/ 16:16:00 SF: if no alt attribute, will ignore unless user sets to read all images 16:16:15 CS: role="presentation" not there for older UAs 16:16:27 JS: strenghtens our argument 16:16:39 q+ 16:16:39 JS: alt="" redundant and unnecessary 16:16:46 CS: MS says "use both" 16:16:49 ack ste 16:17:25 SF: main argument against role=presentation is in GUI UAs do something different if alt="" and IMG without alt text 16:17:46 +q 16:17:48 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 JB: like to move towards action item to get this written up 16:18:15 CS: is it really so terrible to require both alt="" and role="presentation" 16:18:21 q+ 16:18:22 ack cy 16:18:41 JF: implementation issue with browsers according to SF -- their problem, not ours 16:19:18 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 suggests that we present the browser implementation issues/differences as new information, within our clarification] 16:20:13 JB: Would someone who has been following this discussion be willing to write this up? 16:20:48 RS: not aware that browser vendors do not want to provide accommodation to aria for renedering 16:20:59 /me No problem. Over to John... 16:20:59 SF : some browsers will render the lack of image different 16:21:13 oedipus has joined #text 16:21:20 if uses alt="" won't show anuy image at all, if they omit then browser shows that an image would exist 16:21:26 q? 16:21:39 this is how the browsers do things - alt="" is a flag to make image visible or not visible 16:21:52 theydon't want to make role=presentation equal the same as "" 16:22:08 SF don't want to base grafical rendering on ARIA Roles 16:22:27 SF: it goes back to the layering issue 16:22:46 they don't want ARIA to use affect anything but a11y APIs 16:22:53 "layering violation" is a fancy term for "not invented here" 16:23:00 ack j 16:23:08 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 this is no longer a valid justification: ARIA has a section in HTML5 16:23:44 JB: we have a lot to still cover - can we move this to the list? 16:23:54 RS: there is a F2F this week 16:24:40 JB: cyns and rich to continue discussing 16:24:59 text of decision for role=presentation http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/2011/04/html5-accessibility-chops-the-alt-decision/#d2 16:25:25 q+ 16:25:30 We need to recheck this mail http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0451.html within this section == Should it be permitted to omit alt when role=presentation is specified? == 16:26:01 JB: need to revies maciej 's note 16:26:07 are there other issues that need to be discussed 16:26:53 http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/2011/04/html5-accessibility-chops-the-alt-decision/#d2 16:26:59 SF: point out that reformatted decision as html rich as blog post 16:27:59 [judy thanks steve and asks if Rich and Cynthia please focus their attention on Steve's text rather than my mail] 16:28:01 JB: asks that rich and cyns look at Steve's text when discussing this iissue 16:28:25 JB: 1 more question on role="presentation" 16:28:59 if by next monday we get more clarification and consensus, what about the next steps towards Change proposal? 16:29:05 one item is actual spec text 16:29:13 how hard would that be? 16:29:55 SF: good question - for the @title issue it was pretty straightforward 16:30:10 JB: so for @ title it would only take a few hours to write? 16:30:14 SF: yes 16:30:39 JB: for the role="pres" is there anyone else who could take this as a work item? 16:31:03 JB: could SF take this on as well? 16:31:06 SF: yes 16:31:14 +q 16:31:38 CS: Did we take the time to decide if any of these are worth not fighting for? 16:31:49 JB: yes, we did, and are taking this on 2 levels 16:31:57 we looked at the initial 6 16:32:16 we believe that this was one that was significant to address 16:32:29 it may not require a 'fight' but rather clarrification 16:32:41 figcaption might be more significant 16:33:09 scribenick: oedipus 16:33:09 ack jf 16:33:20 ack cyn 16:33:23 ack ste 16:33:25 ack rich 16:33:27 ack Stevef 16:33:51 JB: want to review next section of draft text from Judy 16:34:02 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/05/02-text-minutes.html oedipus 16:34:04 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Apr/0423.html 16:34:20 JB: straw proposal to get a lot of discussion going 16:34:44 scribe: rich 16:34:54 JB: second section to consider is meta name="generator" 16:35:00 look for == On the Co-Chairs' decision on meta name=generator == 16:35:08 judy: on the second section on meta generator 16:35:22 judy: there has been updated text from Leif who was going to try and join today 16:35:35 judy: there was a bunch more discussion 16:35:51 judy: could anyone describe where we are on that 16:36:09 JF: I have got slammed last week. there has been discussion but no meeting of minds 16:36:23 q+ 16:36:27 i/JB: may have short window/scribenick: oedipus/ 16:36:32 JF: if I am to understand gregory's point 16:37:18 gfreed has joined #text 16:37:43 ack ste 16:37:46 judy: my core question is how essential is the core issue that leif and benjamin are generating 16:37:54 +1 to SF 16:38:06 steve: I had not looked at the generator question much 16:38:26 agenda? 16:38:47 i/RS: not aware that browser vendors do not want to provide accommodation/scribenick: JF/ 16:38:49 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 + +1.617.365.aabb 16:39:15 16:39:15 jf: to do this it shuts up the validators 16:39:35 steve: they are using this flag that up to now it shuts up the generators for alt 16:39:41 steve: nobody bought into that 16:40:04 steve: we are talking about millions of pages 16:40:20 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/05/02-text-minutes.html oedipus 16:40:21 cynthia: if they want a magic token they should make a new one 16:40:34 judy: it does not weaken our interest in restoring this 16:40:44 Laura has joined #text 16:40:52 steve: it may be unlikely that they are going to take it away altogether 16:41:08 +1 16:41:12 q+ 16:41:14 hi 16:41:26 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 i/judy: on the second section on meta generator/scribenick: richardschwerdtfe/ 16:41:40 steve: this is the only flag that stops validation 16:41:51 +Laura_Carlson 16:41:55 zakim, aaaa is Geoff 16:41:55 sorry, oedipus, I do not recognize a party named 'aaaa' 16:42:08 zakim, aabb is Geoff 16:42:08 +Geoff; got it 16:42:15 judy: on this issue of the meta generator how do we zero in on a solution for this? 16:42:26 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/05/02-text-minutes.html oedipus 16:42:31 judy: is this something that if you chat with Leif you could zero in on the issue 16:42:33 +Q 16:42:41 judy: we don't want to boil the ocean 16:43:00 steve: to me these are valid arguments for what is there being tossed out 16:43:15 steve: John would be a better person to conduct it with 16:43:44 janina: it seems to me that our issue is that we don't provide a correct alt on images 16:43:57 janina: it is being treated as a get out of jail free card 16:43:58 +1 to Janina 16:44:03 plus 1 to JS 16:44:19 ack jan 16:44:23 ack JF 16:44:25 john: I will spend some time this week. The text Leif has been put together .... it has become verbose 16:44:45 john: I will work with Leif to bring this to s discussion page that we can work off of 16:45:07 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 john: I will meet janina at the airport tomorrow 16:45:26 ack cyn 16:45:52 cynthia: there are 2 scenarios. email and ... 16:45:54 limitations of tools should NOT shape HTML5 16:45:55 +Q 16:46:17 cynthia: I don't see the need to validate email 16:46:22 judy: there is a use case coming 16:46:40 rich: the use case is coming 16:46:42 private verus public email -- can ascertain use case for public email (emessages from gov't, orgs, businesses) 16:47:14 cynthia: it is a design tool discussion. you don't put prompts in peoples' faces 16:47:38 cynthia: WYSIWYG tools is the next piece of accessibility work 16:47:51 judy: Cynthia can you keep watching the dialog on this? 16:48:29 [judy suggests capturing and parking these issues somewhere. any good somewhere to capture and park them?] 16:48:31 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 judy: I want to move to another issue 16:49:09 cynthia: who is working on meta generator and when are they talking? 16:49:12 We need to recheck this mail http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Apr/0423.html within this section == On the Co-Chair's decision on the presence of figcaption == 16:49:18 judy: I am pasting in the next place to look at 16:49:35 look again please at l http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Apr/0423.html within this section == On the Co-Chair's decision on the presence of figcaption == 16:50:00 q+ 16:50:06 ack JF 16:50:13 -Stevef 16:50:19 judy: in the absence of protests we may be heading in the right direction 16:50:50 judy: I think this one maps against an issue regarding support for native accessibility or legacy issues 16:51:10 +??P11 16:51:15 judy: my discussions with people is that their is not a clear position on the task force 16:51:29 zakim, ??P11 is Stevef 16:51:29 +Stevef; got it 16:51:42 judy: Cynthia, is this a new topic? 16:51:48 cynthia: yes 16:52:39 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 janina: I don't see figcaption in that document we produced. 16:53:52 judy: I recall the legend stuff. In preparation for my response where figcaption is extremely different from an alt. 16:53:58 -Cynthia_Shelly 16:53:59 note: old HTML5 verbiage LEGEND is now HTML5 FIGCAPTION 16:54:18 +Cynthia_Shelly 16:54:20 [steve clarifies that figcaption was called figlegend at that time] 16:54:34 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 have to drop off now 16:54:59 Stevef: if you provide the text alternative outside the alt you supply the alt for the label 16:55:17 judy: I do recall the discussion about legends 16:55:26 judy: I suggest we take this off line 16:55:41 judy: let's see if we get some agreement. 16:55:56 judy: on the appropriateness question that is one issue. 16:56:07 judy: the legacy issue would factor into this as well 16:56:34 example of CAPTION versus ALT versus LONGDESC: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/LongdescRetention#Gregory_J._Rosmaita.27s_Original_Rationale_for_Retention 16:56:36 -Laura_Carlson 16:56:42 cynthia: some of the legacy issues are better handled in HTML 5 16:56:45 q+ 16:57:25 judy: what I would like to do is figure out the remaining status on each section 16:57:36 judy: would you be able to do a joint update on the table summary? 16:57:39 gregory: yes 16:57:45 Issue 30 Change Proposal: Include longdesc in HTML5: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/InstateLongdesc 16:57:52 judy: john update on table summary? 16:57:56 JF: yes 16:58:21 judy: the question of splitting out these mails, they may be better handled discretely 16:58:28 stevef, prose comparing longdesc and alt with caption/figcaption available at http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/LongdescRetention#Gregory_J._Rosmaita.27s_Original_Rationale_for_Retention 16:58:36 +1 to split out 16:58:38 judy: do people have problem splitting these up and taking them on 16:58:45 plus 1 to split 16:58:45 +1 to splitting 16:58:46 r 16:58:49 agenda? 16:58:50 bye 16:58:52 Resolution: No objection to splitting 16:59:21 Judy: we need to get the essential issues left 16:59:42 Judy: the question of where the normative alt guidance suggests? 17:00:01