See also: IRC log
<judy> scribe: rich_schwerdtfeger
<richardschwerdtfe> scribe: Rich
<oedipus> scribenick: rechardschwerdtfe
<oedipus> scribenick: richardschwerdtfe
judy: this is the action item collection from last week
<oedipus> Text "product" Tracker: http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/products/5
judy: janina, would you be available to meet with me to discuss the call
janina: yes, later today
judy: gregory is working on a
... judy and shawn are working on a poster
... John, do you have a draft ready
JF: on my things to do this week Judy
judy: we can take the table summary first
<oedipus> @summary draft action item: http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/125
<oedipus> figcaption and @alt: http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/121
judy: I updated the section on figcaption
<oedipus> updated figcaption and alt post (judy) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Apr/0423.html
judy: I think that action item is done.
<oedipus> role presentation action item (rich and steve) http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/122
<inserted> scribenick: oedipus
RS: posted text to list -- read
all of maciej's review
... not brought up was native host lang semantics for HTML5 @alt how impacts a11y api mapping -- if not identical, problemmatic
... issue from chairs' review -- was not made clear that reason need to use iinterchangeably (diff from html4) -- alt="" is equivalent of role="presentation"
RS: host language defines a11y api mapping -- didn't specifically say in HTML4 that image object is removed from a11y API tree
CS: point of contention -- IE doesn't do that and doesn't think it should
<janina> Rich's post is at:
<inserted> scribenick: richardschwerdtfe
judy: this is an email from
... on Friday Paul Cotton sent an email asking what we are trying to do?
<oedipus> paulc query: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Apr/0415.html
judy: We are preparing an email
and depending on the response to those we will create a formal
objection with expedited appeals
... I prefer we coordinate together on this
... Sam replied, in the shared interest of expediency and you are creating clarification please produce a change proposal at the same time.
... this will save us some time
... 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
... Janina and I also mentioned our reply to Paul that we were hoping to work with the chairs on this.
... Are there questions so far on this?
<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: 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
judy: he was saying that if you
do go the new information route explain that it is new
... any questions?
janina: you can't just say they
did not have all the facts
... they did not make the correct decision based on the facts they had
cynthia: that is an argument you
can't win whether you are right or not
... there was a point where Paul was a bit surprised
<oedipus> RS: function of title and alt text being different? that was what paul identified as "new information"
rich: yes that is the difference between alt and title
judy: it did not occur to us that
those making the decision were aware of the fundamental
differences between alt and title
... is it ok if we have a mix of clarification and new information?
<oedipus> JF: what may be clarification for us is new info for others
Resolution: no objection to doing a mix of clarification and new information
Judy: i think we can deal with
each of these items briefly
... there are 4 sub bullets that can be applied without ambiguity
... I am assuming that we would be doing either the first or the third bullet
... we need to make the chairs' lives simple
... any additional thoughts or concerns?
... some of these are not ready
... we have a suggestion from Sam on the list that we add change proposals to clarify what we are saying in our clarification emails.
... any objections to doing that in a one step process?
jf: I do have a question about alt text. I don't know if it makes sense to disambiguate that.
judy: that is agenda item 5
... agenda item 5 has to do with some of our clarification mails to proceed at different paces.
... we have different shared rationals
<oedipus> plus 1 to saving time
judy: for the clarification mails that are ready any objection to doing this as a one step process: (clarification plus change proposals)
Resolution: no objection to having a one step process that include a clariification plus change proposal together
judy: I think that we may have
some hefty topics to discuss among those.
... 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.
... we only have issues with 4 or less of the decisions
... let's walk through these one by one
... The first piece of this is on role="presentation" does not make missing alt conforming.
... there was replaced email on this
... there were questions that leif asked
... 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
john: I think it was more rich and steve were working on this
judy: we have a short window on this
<inserted> scribenick: oedipus
JB: may have short window -- don't want to let questions linger
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
CS: general discomfort with removing things from tree
SF: doesn't remove anything from tree if role="presentation"
RS: what do with layout tables? mark with role="presentation"?
SF: not surprised that alt="" is not removed from A11y tree -- in WAI-ARIA does remove stuff from tree when marked role="presentation"
CS: MS never thought removing
from tree a good idea
... not 100% positive -- will check
RS: exception in IE news to me
SF: role="presentation" on image
removes img from a11y tree
... does alt="" remove from a11y tree -- i would say "no" -- hasn't been implemented yet
JF: why does MS consider this a bad idea?
CS: removing things from tree that complicates things in variety of scenarios
JB: may be something need to deal
... focus on what we want to say -- clarification or new info?
SF: can confirm that role="presentation" to img element removes from a11y tree
JS: what about legacy viewing HTML5 page?
SF: if UA HTML5-compatible, won't be in a11y tree
JF: what happens if img src="foo.jpg" role="presentation" what happens in IE8?
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
SF: for UAs that don't support ARIA would be ignore alt=""
JF: if image used inside link, not going to have role=presentation
SF: right -- no downside then for
older UAs if AT uses hueristics to filter out images without
... if no alt attribute, will ignore unless user sets to read all images
CS: role="presentation" not there for older UAs
JS: strenghtens our
... alt="" redundant and unnecessary
CS: MS says "use both"
SF: main argument against role=presentation is in GUI UAs do something different if alt="" and IMG without alt text
SF: alt="" is a flag to some UAs to render image differently than when there is no alt text provided by author
JB: like to move towards action item to get this written up
CS: is it really so terrible to require both alt="" and role="presentation"
JF: implementation issue with browsers according to SF -- their problem, not ours
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
<judy> [judy suggests that we present the browser implementation issues/differences as new information, within our clarification]
<Leonie_Watson> JB: Would someone who has been following this discussion be willing to write this up?
<inserted> scribenick: JF
RS: not aware that browser vendors do not want to provide accommodation to aria for renedering
<Leonie_Watson> /me No problem. Over to John...
SF: some browsers will render the lack of image different
if uses alt="" won't show anuy image at all, if they omit then browser shows that an image would exist
this is how the browsers do things - alt="" is a flag to make image visible or not visible
theydon't want to make role=presentation equal the same as ""
SF don't want to base grafical rendering on ARIA Roles
SF: it goes back to the layering issue
they don't want ARIA to use affect anything but a11y APIs
<janina> "layering violation" is a fancy term for "not invented here"
RS: to be honest, we didn't have these concepts 10 yrs ago, so using alt="" was the best we had then
this is no longer a valid justification: ARIA has a section in HTML5
JB: we have a lot to still cover - can we move this to the list?
RS: there is a F2F this week
JB: cyns and rich to continue discussing
<Stevef> text of decision for role=presentation http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/2011/04/html5-accessibility-chops-the-alt-decision/#d2
<judy> 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? ==
JB: need to revies maciej 's note
are there other issues that need to be discussed
SF: point out that reformatted decision as html rich as blog post
<judy> [judy thanks steve and asks if Rich and Cynthia please focus their attention on Steve's text rather than my mail]
JB: asks that rich and cyns look
at Steve's text when discussing this iissue
... 1 more question on role="presentation"
if by next monday we get more clarification and consensus, what about the next steps towards Change proposal?
one item is actual spec text
how hard would that be?
SF: good question - for the @title issue it was pretty straightforward
JB: so for @ title it would only take a few hours to write?
JB: for the role="pres" is there
anyone else who could take this as a work item?
... could SF take this on as well?
CS: Did we take the time to decide if any of these are worth not fighting for?
JB: yes, we did, and are taking this on 2 levels
we looked at the initial 6
we believe that this was one that was significant to address
it may not require a 'fight' but rather clarrification
figcaption might be more significant
<oedipus> scribenick: oedipus
JB: want to review next section of draft text from Judy
JB: straw proposal to get a lot of discussion going
<richardschwerdtfe> scribe: rich
JB: second section to consider is meta name="generator"
<judy> look for == On the Co-Chairs' decision on meta name=generator ==
<inserted> scribenick: richardschwerdtfe
judy: on the second section on
... there has been updated text from Leif who was going to try and join today
... there was a bunch more discussion
... could anyone describe where we are on that
JF: I have got slammed last week.
there has been discussion but no meeting of minds
... if I am to understand gregory's point
judy: my core question is how essential is the core issue that leif and benjamin are generating
<JF> +1 to SF
steve: I had not looked at the generator question much
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. ...
<oedipus> <meta generator="Gregory J. Rosmaita" ...>
jf: to do this it shuts up the validators
steve: they are using this flag
that up to now it shuts up the generators for alt
... nobody bought into that
... we are talking about millions of pages
cynthia: if they want a magic token they should make a new one
judy: it does not weaken our interest in restoring this
steve: it may be unlikely that they are going to take it away altogether
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?
... this is the only flag that stops validation
judy: on this issue of the meta
generator how do we zero in on a solution for this?
... is this something that if you chat with Leif you could zero in on the issue
judy: we don't want to boil the ocean
steve: to me these are valid
arguments for what is there being tossed out
... John would be a better person to conduct it with
janina: it seems to me that our
issue is that we don't provide a correct alt on images
... it is being treated as a get out of jail free card
<Leonie_Watson> +1 to Janina
<oedipus> plus 1 to JS
john: I will spend some time this
week. The text Leif has been put together .... it has become
... I will work with Leif to bring this to s discussion page that we can work off of
... you are not in that face to face next week. This has to do with I am not in PF yet
... I will meet janina at the airport tomorrow
cynthia: there are 2 scenarios. email and ...
<oedipus> limitations of tools should NOT shape HTML5
cynthia: I don't see the need to validate email
judy: there is a use case coming
rich: the use case is coming
<oedipus> private verus public email -- can ascertain use case for public email (emessages from gov't, orgs, businesses)
cynthia: it is a design tool
discussion. you don't put prompts in peoples' faces
... WYSIWYG tools is the next piece of accessibility work
judy: Cynthia can you keep watching the dialog on this?
<judy> [judy suggests capturing and parking these issues somewhere. any good somewhere to capture and park them?]
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
judy: I want to move to another issue
cynthia: who is working on meta generator and when are they talking?
<judy> 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 ==
judy: I am pasting in the next place to look at
<judy> 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 ==
judy: in the absence of protests
we may be heading in the right direction
... I think this one maps against an issue regarding support for native accessibility or legacy issues
... my discussions with people is that their is not a clear position on the task force
... Cynthia, is this a new topic?
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
janina: I don't see figcaption in that document we produced.
judy: I recall the legend stuff. In preparation for my response where figcaption is extremely different from an alt.
<oedipus> note: old HTML5 verbiage LEGEND is now HTML5 FIGCAPTION
<judy> [steve clarifies that figcaption was called figlegend at that time]
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
<Laura> have to drop off now
Stevef: if you provide the text alternative outside the alt you supply the alt for the label
judy: I do recall the discussion
... I suggest we take this off line
... let's see if we get some agreement.
... on the appropriateness question that is one issue.
... the legacy issue would factor into this as well
<oedipus> example of CAPTION versus ALT versus LONGDESC: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/LongdescRetention#Gregory_J._Rosmaita.27s_Original_Rationale_for_Retention
cynthia: some of the legacy issues are better handled in HTML 5
judy: what I would like to do is
figure out the remaining status on each section
... would you be able to do a joint update on the table summary?
<Laura> Issue 30 Change Proposal: Include longdesc in HTML5: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/InstateLongdesc
judy: john update on table summary?
judy: the question of splitting out these mails, they may be better handled discretely
<oedipus> 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
<JF> +1 to split out
judy: do people have problem splitting these up and taking them on
<oedipus> plus 1 to split
<Leonie_Watson> +1 to splitting
Resolution: No objection to splitting
Judy: we need to get the
essential issues left
... the question of where the normative alt guidance suggests?
<Leonie_Watson> /me I'll scribe, with the caveat I may be a little late next week.
<oedipus> JB: scribe next week (May 9) leonie watson -- if late, GJR will scribe until LW ready
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/s review// Succeeded: s/read all of maciej'/read all of maciej's review/ Succeeded: s/specificalloy/specifically/ Succeeded: 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./ Succeeded: s/lisa/leif/ Succeeded: s/atl/alt/ Succeeded: i/JB: may have short window/scribenick: oedipus Succeeded: i/RS: not aware that browser vendors do not want to provide accommodation/scribenick: JF Succeeded: i/judy: on the second section on meta generator/scribenick: richardschwerdtfe Succeeded: i/RS: posted text to list -- read all of maciej's review/scribenick: oedipus Succeeded: i/judy: this is an email from Sam/scribenick: richardschwerdtfe Found Scribe: rich_schwerdtfeger WARNING: "Scribe: rich_schwerdtfeger" command found, but no lines found matching "<rich_schwerdtfeger> . . . " Use "ScribeNick: dbooth" (for example) to specify the scribe's IRC nickname. Found Scribe: Rich Found ScribeNick: rechardschwerdtfe WARNING: No scribe lines found matching ScribeNick pattern: <rechardschwerdtfe> ... Found ScribeNick: richardschwerdtfe Found ScribeNick: oedipus Found ScribeNick: richardschwerdtfe Found ScribeNick: oedipus Found ScribeNick: JF Found ScribeNick: oedipus Found Scribe: rich Found ScribeNick: richardschwerdtfe Scribes: rich_schwerdtfeger, Rich ScribeNicks: rechardschwerdtfe, richardschwerdtfe, oedipus, JF Default Present: 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 Present: Cynthia_Shelly Geoff Gregory_Rosmaita John_Foliot Judy Laura_Carlson Leonie_Watson Michael_Cooper Rich Stevef janina Regrets: Lynn_Holdsworth Marco_Ranon Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Apr/0424.html Got date from IRC log name: 02 May 2011 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2011/05/02-text-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]