Text Sub-Team, HTML Accessibility Task Force

31 Jan 2012


Janina_Sajka, David_MacDonald, Michael_Cooper, Judy_Brewer, Steve_Faulkner
Judy, MichaelC, Janina


check that TF-request adjustment on meta name generator CP proposal was completed, and that poll is underway

<Judy> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposal/meta_name=generator_does_not_make_missing_alt_conforming

<Judy> scribe: Judy

JB: Had Steve updated the CP per TF request?

JS: No, but confirmed that his mention of potential negative consequences was pro-forma only there, since the neg consequences weren't real; and he therefore supports the edit to CP.

JB: So who will make the change?

JS: Michael can you make that edit please?

MC: done.

JB: Thx.

JS: I'll poll this now.
... Also I still need to update the consensus policy, but for now we'll proceed under current one.

JB: Mike Smith gave a nice summary in TF call of the case for this CP.

review, discuss, and as appropriate approve updates to change proposal on Title

<MichaelC> scribe: MichaelC

<Judy> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/notitlev2

jb: quick review of above, hope to take to TF for approval

js: primary argument is not to consider content of @title as adequate substitute for @alt

not supported in all environments

particularly mobile, and no plans to introduce support

so it leaves a hole

jb: change since our last review?

js: minor clarifications

mc: unfortunately the changes were made at a new URL instead of the existing one, so we can't take advantage of the wiki history

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say re "no graphical browsers provide input device indpendent access to title attribute content" they will probably ask for which browsers we checked etc.

mc: ^

sf: will provide references

on title vs alt, title used as caption

mc: confused, we're talking title, not figcaption here

<Zakim> Judy, you wanted to suggest a clearer summary on the CP on Title, similar to changes in meta generator summary and to suggest a clearer lead-in to the Rationale section

jb: ^

lots of interesting points, but not sure from which direction they're intended

helpful to tie them specifically to the chairs' decision

more than already

<discussion of wiki format>

unsure of relevance of all the points

dmd: unsure about validation vs wcag conformance issues, could be more clear

sf: the point is that there's no difference to screen reader user experience

instead of allowing title, for captions would be better semantically to push people into figure/figcaption

dmd: that makes sense, but not sure that comes across in this draft

sf: ok, see what clarifications I can make

jb: good start, queuing up the arguments helpful, just need to clean up

sf: note the decision encourages convergence of @title and @alt when we'd like to see focus on figure/figcaption more for some of those use cases

<Stevef> New information: decision promotes convergence of alt and title behaviours

particularly could use review of section:


review progress and or discussion questions on change proposal on WG location of alt

jb: Yay, SF and MC both here!

<Judy> scribe: Janina

judy: Believe michael looking for input?

<Stevef> got kicked off firefox crashed

michael: Main item is whether we want to argue both having html5 spec point to Steve's alt doc AND move Steve's doc to a more appropriate pub location

judy: Wants to note that the location of Steve's doc is affecting other W3C work, but also work outside of W3C--it's confusing people

michael: think it's more difficult to fight the fight

judy: not sure why,

michael: already had feedback from one careful reviewer

judy: also believe it can be explained

<MichaelC> Draft change proposal on location of alt

<MichaelC> Feedback from Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis on above change proosal

<Judy> scribe: Judy

JS: concerned that if we go at this sequentially, it will also confuse people; better to lay out the whole case.
... yes we need the spec to point to appropriate guidance; never said any differently.

MC: difficult to state arguments for moving the doc out

<janina> michael: only arguments for moving doc out of html applicable to other specs and needs to be managed by knowledgable people

<janina> judy: think there're more arguments

<scribe> scribe: Janina

michael: or perhaps we need two cp's, one for each issue

judy: thought we'd agreed on that

janina: i like two separate cp's

judy: I was of the opinion that Michael, you were working on location and Steve was working on getting the HTML spec to point to appropriate guidance
... Michael, can you separate procedurally

michael: of course

judy: we're not obligated to keep them together?

michael: no

janina: separate them!

judy: Steve, are you resuming removing inappropriate alt guidance in html specs?
... Procedurely, do we not need a cp to remove the inappropriate alt language in the html specs?

steve: Had not planned to pursue those bugs further

judy: A cp may be the better tool at this point

michael: I'll send the spec corrective parts to Steve and focus on location

steve: think we need to discuss this more
... do we mean all bad alt language in spec? examples included? or just direct wcag contradiction?

judy: you have the better view of all that's there

michael: suggest we encourage html to keep proper lexical examples that demonstrate correct use
... design guidance regarding the content that makes up the text of the alt should point to appropriate doc

janina: I agree

judy: need to drop,

steve can't stay long

michael: let's plan then
... Can send you the spec related pieces today, then we should talk about coordination of the two proposals
... proposes to talk with steve friday

steve: looks good

michael: and we can go from there

steve: good

<Stevef> http://dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/#m5

janina: thanks

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.135 (CVS log)
$Date: 2012/01/31 19:34:36 $