See also: IRC log
<Judy> scribe: judy
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]
JS: Janina and Steve need to talk
JB: schedule something this week?
JS: will try [and had to leave call]
MNC, JB: JF pulling together some kind of team
JB: will check progress w/ John
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
... 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
... 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
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
... 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.
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
... 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?
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
... 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
... 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
<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
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]