IRC log of text on 2011-05-09

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:30:47 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #text
15:30:47 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:30:51 [Leonie_Watson]
Leonie_Watson has joined #text
15:31:38 [janina]
zakim, this will be 2119
15:31:38 [Zakim]
ok, janina; I see WAI_PF(Text)11:30AM scheduled to start now
15:31:47 [janina]
zakim, who's here?
15:31:47 [Zakim]
WAI_PF(Text)11:30AM has not yet started, janina
15:31:49 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Leonie_Watson, RRSAgent, Zakim, Stevef, gfreed, janina, mranon
15:32:42 [judy]
judy has joined #text
15:33:31 [judy]
zakim, this will be WAI_PF(Text)
15:33:31 [Zakim]
judy, WAI_PF(Text)11:30AM is already associated with an irc channel; use 'move WAI_PF(Text) to here' if you mean to reassociate the channel
15:33:47 [judy]
zakim, move WAI_PF(Text) to here
15:33:49 [Zakim]
ok, judy; that matches WAI_PF(Text)11:30AM
15:33:54 [judy]
15:34:01 [Zakim]
15:34:06 [paulc]
paulc has joined #text
15:34:26 [judy]
meeting: HTML A11Y Text Alternatives Sub-Group Teleconference
15:34:26 [judy]
15:34:26 [judy]
scribe: Leonie_Watson
15:34:45 [judy]
agenda+ Action item review
15:34:45 [judy]
agenda+ Reminder of clarification, new information, and change proposal advice, , ,,
15:34:45 [judy]
agenda+ Status of individual clarifications, new information, and change proposals, including alt validation, table summary, poster alt, longdesc, and location of normative alt guidance
15:34:45 [judy]
agenda+ Response on title ,
15:34:48 [judy]
agenda+ Response on longdesc ,
15:34:49 [JF]
JF has joined #text
15:34:50 [mranon]
regrets+ Lynn_Holdsworth
15:34:52 [judy]
agenda+ Response on figcaption
15:34:54 [judy]
agenda+ Other business?
15:34:55 [judy]
agenda+ Confirm timelines during week of 9 May; confirm next meetings; identify scribe for following meeting; adjourn.
15:35:15 [judy]
zakim, who's making noise?
15:35:26 [Zakim]
judy, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Judy (19%), ??P40 (4%), mranon (75%)
15:35:32 [mranon]
zakim, mute me
15:35:32 [Zakim]
mranon should now be muted
15:35:49 [judy]
zakim, who's here?
15:35:49 [Zakim]
On the phone I see JF, ??P40, ??P41, mranon (muted), Judy, WGBH?
15:35:50 [Zakim]
On IRC I see JF, paulc, judy, Leonie_Watson, RRSAgent, Zakim, Stevef, gfreed, janina, mranon
15:36:25 [Zakim]
15:36:44 [Zakim]
15:36:58 [janina]
zakim, ??P13 is Janina
15:36:59 [Zakim]
+Janina; got it
15:36:59 [Stevef]
zakim, ??P40 is me
15:36:59 [Zakim]
+Stevef; got it
15:37:12 [Zakim]
15:37:39 [Leonie_Watson]
scribe: Leonie_Watson
15:38:10 [Leonie_Watson]
Topic: Action item review
15:38:23 [Leonie_Watson]
JB: I sent out a list of actions extracted from our meetings.
15:38:43 [judy]
zakim, take up agendum 1
15:38:43 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "Action item review" taken up [from judy]
15:38:45 [judy]
15:39:24 [LeifHSilli]
LeifHSilli has joined #text
15:39:55 [LeifHSilli]
Thanks John. nearly on time ...
15:40:33 [richardschwerdtfe]
richardschwerdtfe has joined #text
15:40:35 [Leonie_Watson]
JB: How is the draft on poster alt?
15:41:07 [Leonie_Watson]
JF: I've started some work on beefing up the change proposal, but I don't have anything to share today.
15:41:14 [Zakim]
15:41:25 [Leonie_Watson]
JB: Would something be possible later today?
15:41:38 [Leonie_Watson]
JF: I'm slammed busy at the moment, sorry.
15:42:05 [Leonie_Watson]
JB: Rich did you get a chance to talk about your action at all?
15:42:20 [Leonie_Watson]
RS: We had a busy week with the ARIA implementation guide, so didn't get a chance to talk.
15:42:29 [Leonie_Watson]
JB: Could you do something today/tomorrow?
15:42:42 [Leonie_Watson]
RS: Not today, but I'll try to get hold of Cynthia tomorrow.
15:43:07 [Leonie_Watson]
JB: Gregory and I met on the table summary, so I know there's been some work done there.
15:44:43 [Leonie_Watson]
JB: Did you and Leif get to talk about metaname generator?
15:45:00 [Leonie_Watson]
JF: Not much progress, but I'm working on transferring it into a wiki page.
15:45:31 [Leonie_Watson]
JF: I'm prioritising it over poster alt.
15:45:35 [JF]
JF: Hope to connect with Leif about taking his text, transferring it to a wiki page, and then drastically editing the CP text
15:48:07 [judy]
summary on actions:
15:48:07 [judy]
- judy posted a draft mail on figcaption for discussion
15:48:07 [judy]
- steve posted draft on title for discussion, thanks
15:48:07 [judy]
- john working on poster alt, but will do after meta generator
15:48:07 [judy]
- rich and cynthia will discuss role=presentation
15:48:08 [judy]
- gregory working on table summary
15:48:10 [judy]
- john working with leif on streamlining meta generator
15:48:12 [judy]
- judy working on location of alt guidance response, but after others above
15:48:52 [judy]
zakim, close agendum one
15:48:52 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'close agendum one', judy
15:49:05 [judy]
zakim, take up next item
15:49:05 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "Reminder of clarification, new information, and change proposal advice, ,
15:49:09 [Zakim]
... ,,
15:49:12 [Zakim]
..." taken up [from judy]
15:49:51 [Leonie_Watson]
JB: We had difficulty finding a mail on the list from Sam, relating to presenting new information.
15:50:40 [Leonie_Watson]
JB: The chairs have indicated they'll be sending out the entire draft for pre-last call review next Saturday.
15:51:07 [Leonie_Watson]
JB: I'd like for us to have consensus as a group, rather than as individuals, by the end of the week.
15:51:28 [Leonie_Watson]
rrsagent, make minutes
15:51:28 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Leonie_Watson
15:52:09 [Leonie_Watson]
JF: In terms of seeking broader consensus within the TF, how much time needs to be allowed for that?
15:52:22 [judy]
s/as a group/as a group, to the extent that we can/
15:54:05 [Leonie_Watson]
JB: There are multiple levels of consensus. I think it's better for a sub team to offer consensus, rather than individuals, and if we try to aim for TF wide consensus it will be a challenge.
15:54:39 [Leonie_Watson]
JS: Although the TF looks at sub group recommendations, it's rare for changes to be made. It's been working just fine for media and canvas.
15:54:46 [Leonie_Watson]
JB: Does anyone have concerns about this?
15:55:01 [judy]
s/finding a mail on the list from Sam/finding a mail on the list from Sam, but I've provided the link in today's agenda/
15:55:36 [Leonie_Watson]
JF: Concern for me is perhaps too strong a word. I think we've ben very transparent about the work we've been doing, and we need to be sure someone doesn't come along afterwards and find our actions less than transparent.
15:56:20 [Leonie_Watson]
JB: We could use this week's TF call to give an overview of our change proposals, although this depends on whether they're stable...
15:57:11 [judy]
zakim, take up next item
15:57:11 [Zakim]
agendum 3. "Status of individual clarifications, new information, and change proposals, including alt validation, table summary, poster alt, longdesc, and location of normative alt
15:57:14 [Zakim]
... guidance" taken up [from judy]
15:57:47 [judy]
judy -- realizes this item is redundant with agendum 1
15:57:50 [judy]
zakim, take up next item
15:57:50 [Zakim]
agendum 3 was just opened, judy
15:58:00 [judy]
zakim, close item 3
15:58:00 [Zakim]
agendum 3, Status of individual clarifications, new information, and change proposals, including alt validation, table summary, poster alt, longdesc, and location of normative alt
15:58:04 [Zakim]
... guidance, closed
15:58:06 [Zakim]
I see 5 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
15:58:08 [Zakim]
4. Response on title , [from judy]
15:58:08 [judy]
zakim, take up next item
15:58:08 [Zakim]
agendum 4. "Response on title ," taken up [from judy]
15:58:33 [Leonie_Watson]
JB: Thank you Steve for your work on this.
16:00:34 [Leonie_Watson]
JB: Reactions?
16:00:44 [Leonie_Watson]
SF: I'll run through the major points...
16:02:36 [Leonie_Watson]
SF: In the original change proposal I mentioned that title had not been available to keyboard only users in browsers. I queried the future of this with browser vendors, and the results are included in the new change proposal.
16:04:00 [Leonie_Watson]
SF: Title is problematic on mobile. Taking the Apple website as an example, title is used infrequently. I couldn't find any mobile browser that supports title.
16:05:05 [Leonie_Watson]
SF: When an AT finds an image with a title and no alt, the title value is used as the alt would and the user is none the wiser.
16:05:48 [Leonie_Watson]
SF: Figcaption isn't treated in the same way by ATs. They are distinct from each other from the user's oint of view.
16:07:12 [Leonie_Watson]
SF: Title isn't displayed when images are not rendered. Opera have indicated they wouldn't be keen on changing this. I haven't heard from IE/FF yet. Safari is the exception.
16:08:41 [Leonie_Watson]
SF: The HTML5 spec forbids title from being used as a tooltip.
16:08:57 [Leonie_Watson]
rrsagent, make minutes
16:08:57 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Leonie_Watson
16:09:06 [janina]
16:09:19 [Leonie_Watson]
JF: Is it worth looking at the redundancy factor?
16:09:57 [Leonie_Watson]
SF: I thought about that, but didn't really know where to fit it in.
16:11:02 [Leonie_Watson]
JS: I'm wondering if we need the reference to figcaption? Only because it might serve to confuse some people, given that we also have a figcatption discussion going on spearately?
16:11:47 [Leonie_Watson]
SF: What it does is address one of the points in the decision, which is why don't we have both? If we have one, I don't think we should have title because it has ambiguous semantics.
16:12:27 [Leonie_Watson]
RS: Title is used for tooltips, were they saying you wouldn't need titles on each of four images in a figure?
16:12:57 [Leonie_Watson]
JB: Maybe that could be taken out and dealt with separately?
16:13:08 [Leonie_Watson]
JS: I think the cleaner we can make our arguments the better.
16:13:56 [Leonie_Watson]
SF: Have you been through and addressed each of the points in the decision do you think?
16:14:34 [Leonie_Watson]
s/SF: Have/JB: Have/
16:15:15 [Leonie_Watson]
JB: My impression is that you looked through pretty carefully.
16:15:34 [Leonie_Watson]
SF: I have read through the decision a number of times, and have tried to address the particular points.
16:15:57 [Leonie_Watson]
JB: Apart from the figcaption reference, are there any other objections to this?
16:16:02 [Zakim]
16:16:13 [Leonie_Watson]
SF: I've taken out the figcaption stuff.
16:16:23 [Zakim]
16:16:28 [Leonie_Watson]
JB: WOuld people on the call be willing to suport the proposal as it is now?
16:16:31 [gfreed]
gf +1
16:16:31 [janina]
16:16:49 [LeifHSilli]
I must say that I am sceptical about the the @title CP.
16:17:06 [Leonie_Watson]
16:17:38 [judy]
zakim, who's here?
16:17:38 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Stevef, mranon (muted), Judy, WGBH?, Janina, Leonie_Watson, Rich, JF
16:17:40 [Zakim]
On IRC I see richardschwerdtfe, LeifHSilli, JF, paulc, judy, Leonie_Watson, RRSAgent, Zakim, Stevef, gfreed, janina, mranon
16:17:56 [richardschwerdtfe]
@Leif, what is your concern?
16:18:10 [LeifHSilli]
may be
16:18:50 [JF]
JF: do we follow this format of crating change proposals for each of the items that wee addressed by the chairs as a single response
16:18:56 [Leonie_Watson]
rrsagent, make minutes
16:18:56 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Leonie_Watson
16:18:59 [JF]
16:19:33 [Zakim]
16:20:18 [Zakim]
16:21:23 [mranon]
+1 to Steve's proposal (I wasn't sure about figcaption, mostly because it's also a separate contentious topic, as Janina said)
16:21:31 [JF]
+1 to supporting Steve's text
16:21:34 [mranon]
zakim, unmute me
16:21:34 [Zakim]
mranon should no longer be muted
16:21:38 [judy]
+1 judy also support
16:21:47 [richardschwerdtfe]
+1 to support Steve's text
16:22:11 [mranon]
zakim, mute me
16:22:11 [Zakim]
mranon should now be muted
16:22:52 [Leonie_Watson]
JS: We had +1 from people and some concerns, but also some silences. How should we interpret those?
16:22:58 [Zakim]
16:22:58 [Zakim]
16:24:38 [Leonie_Watson]
LS: I agree with the principle, but don't think its nescessary to emphasise all the details.
16:26:21 [Leonie_Watson]
SF: There's no question about whether it's used by ATs as a fallback, but only that there is no differentiation when they do from the user's perspective.
16:26:59 [Leonie_Watson]
JB: I'm hearing that you agree with Steve's proposal, but don't think we need as much detail?
16:27:45 [Leonie_Watson]
JB: Do you object to Steve's proposal Leif?
16:28:09 [Leonie_Watson]
LS: I wonder if it goes too far in describing the problems with title.
16:28:49 [Leonie_Watson]
JB: Ok, there seems to be general support for this. Steve, unless you want to discuss further with Lief, do you want to go ahead with this?
16:29:51 [JF]
+1 to steve
16:30:07 [Leonie_Watson]
SF: If Lief wants to make some additional points that's fine, but I don't have too much time to change things at this stage. I hear Lief's point about too much detail, but I'm not going to take things out now unless there's consensus from the group.
16:30:30 [Leonie_Watson]
JB: Is tht ok with you Lief?
16:30:38 [Leonie_Watson]
LS: Yes.
16:31:05 [judy]
zakim, take up next item
16:31:05 [Zakim]
I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, judy
16:31:12 [judy]
16:31:14 [Zakim]
16:31:18 [judy]
ack ja
16:31:22 [judy]
zakim, take up next item
16:31:22 [Zakim]
agendum 5. "Response on longdesc ," taken up
16:31:25 [Zakim]
... [from judy]
16:31:27 [Leonie_Watson]
rrsagent, make minutes
16:31:27 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Leonie_Watson
16:32:47 [JF]
16:32:50 [Leonie_Watson]
JB: There's been a lot of list activity on this. What I'm curious about, is what this group thinks about the current state of the longdesc proposal? Is it something we support, or not?
16:34:12 [Leonie_Watson]
JF: I've exchanged emails with Laura about making the change proposal a little more terse. I'm very happy to support it, but we need to focus on the spec language.
16:35:34 [Leonie_Watson]
JB: How mcuh of this is still in flux? Which bits are still up in the air?
16:36:32 [judy]
s/of this is still in flux/of the proposed spec text is still in flux/
16:37:31 [Leonie_Watson]
JB: Can anyone summarise the pending questions in the spec text?
16:37:37 [JF]
16:37:59 [JF]
ack jf
16:38:13 [Leonie_Watson]
JB: How much of the spec text on longdesc is pending, and how much support is there for Laura's direction on this? These are the questions.
16:38:18 [judy]
zakim, who's here?
16:38:18 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Judy, WGBH?, Janina, Leonie_Watson, Rich, JF, [IPcaller]
16:38:20 [Zakim]
On IRC I see richardschwerdtfe, LeifHSilli, JF, paulc, judy, Leonie_Watson, RRSAgent, Zakim, gfreed, janina
16:39:00 [JF]
+1 tp Geoff and Rich - agree in principle but want to dance the details
16:39:15 [Laura]
Laura has joined #text
16:39:33 [Laura]
16:40:02 [Laura]
16:40:16 [judy]
hi Laura, how many questions do you believe remain in the proposed spec text itself?
16:40:20 [JF]
16:41:20 [Zakim]
16:41:21 [judy]
...we need the proposed spec text to stabilize, for people to evaluate their support on the updated version
16:41:58 [JF]
JF: asks about the fragment identifier issue
16:42:22 [JF]
LS: if the descripition is part of a secondary page, then it should point to the IDREF
16:43:18 [JF]
JF: sounds more like an authoring guidance issue
16:43:53 [JF]
JB: thanks to Laura for joing. How many things do you beoieve are still open in the CP. Do you think it will be possible to wrap up in the next day or so?
16:44:05 [JF]
LC: believe we are very close right now
16:44:27 [JF]
JB: there was only the once concern that Leif had about the fragment identifier
16:44:49 [Leonie_Watson]
Leonie_Watson has joined #text
16:44:51 [richardschwerdtfe]
16:44:55 [richardschwerdtfe]
16:45:00 [JF]
everyone is trying to catch up to see where things are. If we can get a stable CP by tomorrow, then the larger group can review that instead of the numerous emails
16:45:03 [JF]
16:45:09 [JF]
ack jf
16:45:48 [Leonie_Watson]
RS: When I made changes I marked them with something like "zzz".
16:45:53 [JF]
RS: Notes there are inserts in the spec text CP, is this a convention we are looking to use?
16:45:57 [Leonie_Watson]
LC: I can do that if it makes things easier?
16:46:06 [JF]
LC: can change it to match whatever
16:46:08 [Leonie_Watson]
RS: It's more a convention consideration than anything.
16:46:17 [JF]
RS: did you want to have a Longdesc on a figure?
16:46:20 [Leonie_Watson]
RS: Also, would you want longdesc on a figure?
16:46:28 [JF]
CP: that might be something for the future
16:46:30 [Leonie_Watson]
LC: I'm not sure we want to go there right now.
16:46:43 [JF]
LC: that could be dealt with as a bug in the future
16:46:45 [Leonie_Watson]
JB: It's a good question, but probably not this week.
16:46:48 [JF]
JB: agrees with that
16:47:25 [Leonie_Watson]
rrsagent, make minutes
16:47:25 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Leonie_Watson
16:48:11 [Leonie_Watson]
JB: We could be close to a stable version in the next couple of days then?
16:48:22 [Leonie_Watson]
LC: I think so, yes.
16:49:09 [JF]
+1 for the thanks to LC
16:50:04 [Leonie_Watson]
JB: Let's let timing drive us this week.
16:50:07 [janina]
+1 on thanks to Laura
16:50:46 [judy]
zakim, take up next item
16:50:46 [Zakim]
I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, judy
16:50:51 [judy]
16:50:56 [judy]
ack r
16:51:06 [judy]
zakim, take up next item
16:51:06 [Zakim]
agendum 6. "Response on figcaption" taken up [from judy]
16:51:37 [Leonie_Watson]
JB: I sent a mail to the list shortly before the call. I'd like to give people a quick overview of what's here.
16:52:22 [Leonie_Watson]
JB: There is an essential issue of user requirement that is important to raise. In any case the email is linked from the agenda.
16:55:28 [janina]
+1 to Judy's analysis
16:55:58 [Leonie_Watson]
JB: On the perspective of user requirements, what do people think? If people think there are different use cases?
16:57:31 [Leonie_Watson]
JF: With alt="" being the same as role="presentation", then there is the potential for a figcaption to point to an image that doesn't exist in the accessibility API.
16:58:22 [Leonie_Watson]
JB: There may be additional arguments in favour of re-opening this. I'd like to establish if people agree with it as it stands?
16:58:37 [gfreed]
17:00:02 [Zakim]
17:00:26 [JF]
JB: asking if we can have a followup call on figcaption, but time availability seems to be a problem
17:00:46 [JF]
some support, but others unsure
17:00:58 [JF]
JB: will explore more on mailing list
17:01:11 [Zakim]
17:01:14 [Zakim]
17:01:15 [JF]
please review the figcaption draft, and respond
17:01:18 [Zakim]
17:01:20 [janina]
janina has left #text
17:01:21 [Zakim]
17:01:38 [Zakim]
17:01:43 [Zakim]
17:01:53 [Laura]
17:01:54 [JF]
zakim, bye
17:01:54 [Zakim]
leaving. As of this point the attendees were JF, mranon, Judy, +1.617.300.aaaa, Janina, Stevef, Leonie_Watson, Rich, [IPcaller], Laura_Carlson
17:01:54 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #text
17:02:06 [JF]
rrsagent, make logs public
17:02:16 [JF]
rrsagent, make minutes
17:02:16 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate JF
17:02:42 [JF]
rrsagent, please part
17:02:42 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items