Text Alternatives sub-group, HTML Accessibility Task Force

29 Nov 2011


See also: IRC log


Janina, John_Foliot, Judy, Michael_Cooper, SteveF, [IPcaller], Léonie_Watson
Joshue_O_Connor, Laura_Carlson
judy, LeonieW, MichaelC


<Judy> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Nov/0215.html

<Judy> scribe: judy

status check across multiple items

JS: still may finish response to Matt, but not to hold up Chairs

JB: can attach response to Matt to Laura's CP or in info in survey

JS: JF asked Jonas to read it; follow up with John Foliot?

JB: will follow up with JohnF

JS: also suggesting checking w/ David B

JB: will do that too

JS: will ask Rich to also check w/ Jonas on this

[that item was topic #2]

status of meta name=generator issue?

JB: status?

JS: Janina and Steve need to talk

JB: schedule something this week?

JS: will try [and had to leave call]

JB: status?

MNC, JB: JF pulling together some kind of team

JB: will check progress w/ John

any other text-alternatives issues to discuss or track for now?

JB: any recent items from the bug-triage sub group to toss over to the text-alternatives group?

MC: not sure. they're mainly working on providing info on "needs info" bugs.

JB: can you at your next tues meeting of bug triage TF, to confirm that they've passed everything that they need to to this subgroup, and that we've caught it all?

MC: searching on that qu now.
... status is mixed... "won't fix,"..... "fixed"....

JB: both types need confirmation

MC: so we've gotta check "needs info," "won't fix," and "fixed"

JB: everything needs confirmation, yup
... and there's been a stats request
... # of bugs that were TF-backed, and which ones were tagged w/ a11y but not necessarily TF-backed

[discussion of bug stats continues, off-topic for text alternative sub-group call but still waiting for another participant to return to agenda...]

<scribe> scribe: LeonieW

WG location of alt guidance doc -- status of change proposal; new draft(s)

JB: There was initial concern about some of the alt guidance in the HTML draft.
... The plan was to counter that with more experienced guidance from the accessibility community, and extract it into a separate document.
... It was then thought this information would be better suited as WCAG techniques or application notes for WCAG.
... There was then a survey that resulted in other suggestions. Things were then revisited.
... Michael was then actioned to write a rationale for making the information more in line with accessibility guidance in other specs.

<MichaelC> Draft change proposal

JB: Another action was to pull some of the less accurate guidance out of the spec. This hasn't happened yet.
... Meanwhile the alt text document has been updated and continues to move forward.

<MichaelC> Laura Carlson's feedback

JB: Steve, you've put a ton of work into this. Wanted to make sure you were aware of the background.

<MichaelC> Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis' feedback

SF: There is a lot of normative text within the HTML5 spec. I don't see that moving alt text out of the HTML WG achieves anything.
... It's useful for the document to be there because it's a draft normative document.

<MichaelC> Philosophical position on location of accessibility advice that got me into this mess :)

SF: The alt doc is normative and it has requirements. Sometimes those requirements conflict with information in either the W3C or WHAT WG specs.

JB: Yes. The step that was missed was pulling the less accurate guidance out of the HTML5 spec.
... I understand there is stil some transition. The normativity is a question we may need to revisit. The information you're putting together is likely to be relevant to far more than the HTML5 spec.

SF: Neither document should provide normative guidance. The guidance from both documents should be conforming with WCAG 2.0.

JB: The aspects Steve and Michael are working on are complimentary.

MC: I'm working on where the document should be published, rather than the doc itself.

JB: The guidance needs to keep evolving and to be in discussion, especially by the people who have the right expertise. It also needs to be more formally moved in terms of where it's published.

SF: What we have at the moment is the HTML5 spec, which has the appearance of the authoritative source. Once we resolve the problem of inaccurate information, everything else will flow from that point.
... If we move it out of the HTML WG we may have less control over it.
... We have a counterpoint within the HTML WG that (I think) provides more accurate information than the HTML5 spec itself.

JB: What we're trying to do is move this to the next phase. Evolving it with them, but not having it something that could result in the same situation as before.

SF: OK. Next steps would be to get the problematic content within the HTML5 spec modified or removed. Once that happens, there is no need for a normative document.

JB: There were bugs filed on removing that during last call?

SF: Yes.

JB: I don't think that hinders Michael's work on the place for publishing this doc.

MC: Listening to Steve, I wonder if that next step is the right one.

JB: I'm not sure there is time for that.

MC: The alt doc isn't under the HTML timeline. Getting the content removed from the HTML5 spec is.

JB: They're publishing the entire suite in one go, not one at a time. There won't be a dedicated publicatin for this one doc, unless there's good reason.

MC: Has it been to last call status?

JB: No. I just don't think we have as much time on this as we think.
... We have bugs filed. We need to be following up to make sure those bugs are addressed.
... Does anyone know the status on those bugs?

LW: We came across these bugs during a triage review, but I don't know what status they were off hand.

JB: We need to follow up on those bugs. I'm not sure we should wait on doing anything else until they're sorted.

SF: What would be unacceptable would be to move the alt doc out from HTML WG and not have the incorrect information removed from the HTML5 spec.

MC: I'm not sure how the alt doc would pass canndidate recommendation phase as normative text?

JB: I think this has been looked into before in the long term.

SF: There are objections about the normativity. There will be a second round of last call, so I think there's time.
... The alt doc is guidance. It's techniques like other WCAG techniques.

JB: Michael, part of your change proposal was to look at te different types of guidance in the alt doc and where they would map.

MC: I'd prepared a previous document looking into that. I didn't want to bloat the change proposal though.
... Technology specific advice should be part of the spec. Implementation guidance should be elsewhere.
... Technology advice = how do I add an alt text. Implementation advice = how do I write a good text description.

JB: Léonie, can you or anyone take a look at the status of those bugs?
... I won't be available for this call next week, but perhaps the time could be used to follow up on some of this to provide an update that Janina and I could take to the chairs?

MC: An hour earlier would be easier for me.

SF: An hour earlier would be ok, but only for 30 mins.

MC: We could wrap up the triage call early, as has been happening recently anyway?

LW: Yes, we could do that.

<MichaelC> scribe: MichaelC

SF: also need to work on meta generator and title

JB: Janina wants to schedule phone call on that


JB: Update on meta generator?

JF: s/generated content/generated content/
... starting to think of it as a UAAG issue than an HTML 5 issue

JB: anything need to be pulled from HTML 5?

JF: Think not

can check into that

JB: so issue for UAAG is that generated content needs to be exposed

what are next actions?

JF: there is a bug in the system, awaiting editor response

anticipating response will be it's not HTML 5 issue

JB: let's proactively alert UAWG


MC: if JF can add this info to the bug, editor will have something to go on

JF: will do

JB: also update TF

JF: ok

<Judy> this text alts sub group will meet again in two weeks

<Judy> ...on dec 13th

<Judy> ...at 1pm US EST

<scribe> chair: Judy_Brewer

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.136 (CVS log)
$Date: 2011/11/29 19:35:54 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.136  of Date: 2011/05/12 12:01:43  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/though/thought/
Succeeded: s/objectivity/normativity/
Succeeded: s/meta generator/generated content/
Succeeded: s/scribe: Leonie/scribe: LeonieW/
Found Scribe: judy
Inferring ScribeNick: Judy
Found Scribe: LeonieW
Inferring ScribeNick: LeonieW
Found Scribe: MichaelC
Inferring ScribeNick: MichaelC
Scribes: judy, LeonieW, MichaelC
ScribeNicks: Judy, LeonieW, MichaelC
Default Present: Judy, Janina, Michael_Cooper, [IPcaller], SteveF, John_Foliot
Present: Janina John_Foliot Judy Michael_Cooper SteveF [IPcaller] Léonie_Watson
Regrets: Joshue_O_Connor Laura_Carlson
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Nov/0219.html
Got date from IRC log name: 29 Nov 2011
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2011/11/29-text-minutes.html
People with action items: 

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]