<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?
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.
<MichaelC> scribe: MichaelC
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.
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
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:
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
<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?
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