See also: IRC log
<MarkS> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Scribe_List
<scribe> scribe: SuzanneT
<Judy> http://idpf.org/edupub-2013
JS: not ready to published, but was published
ironing out status of document, wondering whether or not to finish consensus process
status should say aimed at HTML 5.1
need a second editor
JB: should complete process, with a note that the document is intended to be joinly produced document
status should be updated per bug that steve f entered
should we get Mark listed on any of these joint documents, to help prevent this type of issue
<chaals> Sorry folks, I just sent regrets and some comments...
Group: need to archive some of the editors; okay to drop Cynthia? yes
(if possible, try to say your name when speaking, since i'm still learning voices)
JS: discussion on Aug 1st: conclusion was yes, useful to id class of object, such as "logo"
<MarkS> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23207 -> filed by janina
propose to include a number of these like, pie chart, bar graph, etc
<MarkS> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22854 -> david macdonald
MS: foound related bug by Dave McDonald
mark as duplicate
Mark will add additional classes of images
JS: perhaps show a few design patterns for how you add the classes
JF: might be in WCAG techniques
<SteveF> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/embedded-content-0.html#graphical-representations:-charts,-diagrams,-graphs,-maps,-illustrations
group: keep these parallel, there's a task force that is responsible for WCAG techniques for HTML 5
oh, sorry JF
SF: problem with active
images, 'logo' might cause folks to think this is a link to a
logo
... the alt-text for active images is the link text which needs
to be a brief description of the target
group: logo: links to homepage? but then print icon: prints page?
JS: okay to ask techniques taskforce to take this up
group: yes, useful
MarkS: can take this up as an action item
<MarkS> ACTION: MarkS to follow up with WCAG on providing feedback on ALT advise document, specifically on the use of class/category info on images, especially when contained within hyperlinks. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/09/12-html-a11y-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-194 - Follow up with wcag on providing feedback on alt advise document, specifically on the use of class/category info on images, especially when contained within hyperlinks. [on Mark Sadecki - due 2013-09-19].
2 items on the agenda today - 60 day last call closes on Monday - time for comments nearly passed
1) testing for CR exit
<MarkS> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Longdesc-tests -> longdesc test results wiki
<MarkS> https://github.com/chaals/longdesc-tests -> longdesc tests on github
JS: clean up needed, can probably do in next couple weeks, not days
2) need to provide a formal response to these, after establishing concensus on our response
there are five such comments
<MarkS> https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/44061/WD-html-longdesc-20130716/ -> longdesc comment tracker
send candidate resolutions to the list to see if there are any objections
JS: seeking to be exhaustive and thorough documenting both concensus and minor opinions
<MarkS> CN(via email): I propose to make no substantive changes in response to the comments, but in response to the comments from James Craig I will propose to add a statement to the effect that authors should not use longdesc as an excuse for not achieving better accessibility with techniques like the use of accessible SVG, or MathML instead of pictures of mathematical expressions - in such cases longdesc should be considered a fallback for old technology.
JB: is it acceptable to use a description instead of mathML for a single bit of math?
jf: strong reservations on saying
that long desc is inappropriate
... concerned how we convey this. for example, saying use SVG
can be a problem, since support is poor
... should avoid negative comments
ST: often we use longdesc to include MathML
jf: this could be an attempt at weakening longdesc, but the word 'inappropriate' is subjective
JB: helpful to focus on alternate response & wording
JS: better to talk about what
we encourage and recognize that there are many ways to achieve
appropriate markup
... spec is not the place for author guidance on choosing what
to do
... positive not negative, support many ways/options, point to
other W3C guidance
jf: can live with that, believe it belongs in WCAG techniques document
CS: what about a see also link to other options, instead of making a judgement
JB: perhaps handle in techniques layers, but have to get the timing to work better
JS: Is there an appropriate use of longdesc instead of mathML or instead of SVG?
two considerations: developer learning curve & user learning curve (download mathplayer, etc)
the tutorial folks have raised this question and need an answer
jf: educational folks were concerned because Google Chrome was supposed to supply native support, but it was dropped
<JF> ACTION: JF to contact edu folks re: MathML support and failure status in 2 weeks [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/09/12-html-a11y-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-195 - Contact edu folks re: mathml support and failure status in 2 weeks [on John Foliot - due 2013-09-19].
JS: proposed response to very specific requirements for longdesc implementations: allow developers to be creative because
there is room for improvements