See also: IRC log
<judy> scribe: Leonie_Watson
<scribe> scribe: Leonie_Watson
JB: I sent out a list of actions extracted from our meetings.
<LeifHSilli> Thanks John. nearly on time ...
JB: How is the draft on poster alt?
JF: I've started some work on beefing up the change proposal, but I don't have anything to share today.
JB: Would something be possible later today?
JF: I'm slammed busy at the moment, sorry.
JB: Rich did you get a chance to talk about your action at all?
RS: We had a busy week with the ARIA implementation guide, so didn't get a chance to talk.
JB: Could you do something today/tomorrow?
RS: Not today, but I'll try to get hold of Cynthia tomorrow.
JB: Gregory and I met on the
table summary, so I know there's been some work done
... Did you and Leif get to talk about metaname generator?
JF: Not much progress, but I'm
working on transferring it into a wiki page.
... I'm prioritising it over poster alt.
<JF> JF: Hope to connect with Leif about taking his text, transferring it to a wiki page, and then drastically editing the CP text
<judy> summary on actions:
<judy> - judy posted a draft mail on figcaption for discussion
<judy> - steve posted draft on title for discussion, thanks
<judy> - john working on poster alt, but will do after meta generator
<judy> - rich and cynthia will discuss role=presentation
<judy> - gregory working on table summary
<judy> - john working with leif on streamlining meta generator
<judy> - judy working on location of alt guidance response, but after others above
JB: We had difficulty finding a
mail on the list from Sam, but I've provided the link in
today's agenda, relating to presenting new information.
... The chairs have indicated they'll be sending out the entire draft for pre-last call review next Saturday.
... I'd like for us to have consensus as a group, to the extent that we can, rather than as individuals, by the end of the week.
JF: In terms of seeking broader consensus within the TF, how much time needs to be allowed for that?
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.
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.
JB: Does anyone have concerns about this?
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.
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...
<judy> judy -- realizes this item is redundant with agendum 1
JB: Thank you Steve for your work
SF: I'll run through the major
... 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.
... 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.
... 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.
... Figcaption isn't treated in the same way by ATs. They are distinct from each other from the user's oint of view.
... 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.
... The HTML5 spec forbids title from being used as a tooltip.
JF: Is it worth looking at the redundancy factor?
SF: I thought about that, but didn't really know where to fit it in.
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?
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.
RS: Title is used for tooltips, were they saying you wouldn't need titles on each of four images in a figure?
JB: Maybe that could be taken out and dealt with separately?
JS: I think the cleaner we can make our arguments the better.
JB: Have you been through and
addressed each of the points in the decision do you
... My impression is that you looked through pretty carefully.
SF: I have read through the decision a number of times, and have tried to address the particular points.
JB: Apart from the figcaption reference, are there any other objections to this?
SF: I've taken out the figcaption stuff.
JB: WOuld people on the call be willing to suport the proposal as it is now?
<gfreed> gf +1
<LeifHSilli> I must say that I am sceptical about the the @title CP.
<richardschwerdtfe> @Leif, what is your concern?
<LeifHSilli> may be
<JF> JF: do we follow this format of creating change proposals for each of the items that wee addressed by the chairs as a single response
<mranon> +1 to Steve's proposal (I wasn't sure about figcaption, mostly because it's also a separate contentious topic, as Janina said)
<JF> +1 to supporting Steve's text
<judy> +1 judy also support
<richardschwerdtfe> +1 to support Steve's text
JS: We had +1 from people and some concerns, but also some silences. How should we interpret those?
LS: I agree with the principle, but don't think its nescessary to emphasise all the details.
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.
JB: I'm hearing that you agree
with Steve's proposal, but don't think we need as much
... Do you object to Steve's proposal Leif?
LS: I wonder if it goes too far in describing the problems with title.
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?
<JF> +1 to steve
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.
JB: Is tht ok with you Lief?
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?
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.
JB: How mcuh of the proposed spec
text is still in flux? Which bits are still up in the
... Can anyone summarise the pending questions in the spec text?
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.
<JF> +1 tp Geoff and Rich - agree in principle but want to dance the details
<judy> hi Laura, how many questions do you believe remain in the proposed spec text itself?
<judy> ...we need the proposed spec text to stabilize, for people to evaluate their support on the updated version
<JF> JF: asks about the fragment identifier issue
<JF> LS: if the descripition is part of a secondary page, then it should point to the IDREF
<JF> JF: sounds more like an authoring guidance issue
<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?
<JF> LC: believe we are very close right now
<JF> JB: there was only the once concern that Leif had about the fragment identifier
<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
RS: When I made changes I marked them with something like "zzz".
<JF> RS: Notes there are inserts in the spec text CP, is this a convention we are looking to use?
LC: I can do that if it makes things easier?
<JF> LC: can change it to match whatever
RS: It's more a convention consideration than anything.
<JF> RS: did you want to have a Longdesc on a figure?
RS: Also, would you want longdesc on a figure?
<JF> CP: that might be something for the future
LC: I'm not sure we want to go there right now.
<JF> LC: that could be dealt with as a bug in the future
JB: It's a good question, but probably not this week.
<JF> JB: agrees with that
JB: We could be close to a stable version in the next couple of days then?
LC: I think so, yes.
<JF> +1 for the thanks to LC
JB: Let's let timing drive us this week.
<janina> +1 on thanks to Laura
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.
... There is an essential issue of user requirement that is important to raise. In any case the email is linked from the agenda.
<janina> +1 to Judy's analysis
JB: On the perspective of user requirements, what do people think? If people think there are different use cases?
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.
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?
<JF> JB: asking if we can have a followup call on figcaption, but time availability seems to be a problem
<JF> some support, but others unsure
<JF> JB: will explore more on mailing list
<JF> please review the figcaption draft, and respond
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/as a group/as a group, to the extent that we can/ Succeeded: 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/ Succeeded: s/SF: Have/JB: Have/ Succeeded: s/crating/creating/ Succeeded: s/of this is still in flux/of the proposed spec text is still in flux/ Found Scribe: Leonie_Watson Inferring ScribeNick: Leonie_Watson Found Scribe: Leonie_Watson Inferring ScribeNick: Leonie_Watson Default Present: JF, mranon, Judy, +1.617.300.aaaa, Janina, Stevef, Leonie_Watson, Rich, [IPcaller], Laura_Carlson Present: JF mranon Judy +1.617.300.aaaa Janina Stevef Leonie_Watson Rich [IPcaller] Laura_Carlson Regrets: Lynn_Holdsworth Got date from IRC log name: 09 May 2011 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2011/05/09-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]