19 October 2000 WCAG WG telecon

Summary of action items


Next face to face

  1. Two Day Preference: Mon/Tues or Thurs/Fri. (Feb. 26-27 or March 1-2)
  2. Will your group be flexible about the meeting days: If you choose Mon/Tues; would Thurs/Fri be acceptable?
  3. The number of people in your group that will attend the f2f meeting __
  4. Will folks in your group attend the Wednesday Plenary?
  5. What other W3C groups, specifically, would your group like to meet?
  6. Are there other groups with significant membership overlap with yours which should NOT be scheduled on the same days?

GV I teach on Monday, so I prefer Thurs/Fri.

About 10 - 15 people will attend.

Mobile, device independent authoring, other WAI groups, XHTML, XForms, Voice Browser, XLink, XPointer.

New draft

WC Not out yet. It's close.

JW Then we'll vote on the list. I'll take a stab at finishing up proposal for checkpoint 1.1. Please raise remaining issues with checkpoint 1.1.

GV If you post wording and know there are things that were not addressed, please mention this.

WC That discussion is in the minutes from the face to face.

Text equivalents be identified in markup

JW Impressions of whether people want a requirement. A separate checkpoint?

LGR Is the concern that it is hard to confirm that text equivalents exist?

JW It is hard to generate something with text equivalent, especially if a document generated for user preferences.

GV For example?

GR In UA context, the ability to embed text descriptions into clip art. You can also find copyright info. If UA has a way to extract, and AT's are being encouraged to do that for clip art they are distributing.

GV If no alt-text why wouldn't the tool look inside? If it's there, it can easily find.

GR The request is from an authoring standpoint. I think this was raised for clarification. How do people believe we should deal with this issue? Should we throw it to UA or ATAG? Gets to the heart of "web content" is it the component or document or application.

CT This idea of section 5 is problematic wrt UA.

GV If it's something like a picture you could grab the info from the data format, but if you have turned graphics off, then the UA would not know to fetch it.

CT I understand the issue to be: how much do we want to know about a structure.

JW Who wants this requirement? Each text equivalent must be marked up as per guideline 2 from the accompanying text.

CMN Yes, I would like to see such a proposal.

DB Still having troubling understanding it? Must be distinguished?

JW Can do in SVG or in HTML w/alt. However, this needs to be distinct in the markup.

CMN Example is: alt in HTML - this is an alt for this image. an example of not doing it: having a chart w/alt that says, "great britain chart" and then in the content a description. no way to associate them.

DB If someone has in the text that would not be explicitly linked. In HTML 4 could use longdesc.

GR In another application, they use captions to describe photos. The alt-text is then usually "photo" or "black and white photo."

CS An interesting idea, sounds like a feature to add to HTML.

WC I think that it is clear from 1.1

GR It can be interpreted to mean that if you do OCR.

JW Or if you generate something with descriptions with no markup, you're rendering it as text.

GV Two parts:

  1. alternative text not distinct from text
  2. marked up but not obvious

alt-text will be distinct from, if not always rendered and not alt. Knowing that it is there is what we need to focus on. "If alt-text provided, it must be obvious from the markup to indicate its presence."

Action JW: Propose text to cover the issue about associating text equivalents with what they represent.

Action GR: Try to abstract JW's proposal.

CS This does not work for all interfaces. If a voice interface, it doesn't matter if a graphic button exists somewhere.

CT What if you can turn it off?

CS That will cause problems for people with cognitive disabilities.

CT You can not decide for the user.

KB This assumption comes with the idea that there is an optimal presentation. From our work, there are different ways of presenting information. I don't need to present to a visual user if they have said, "don't play me sound" to let them know that there is sound here. I spoke with Ian about this because it sounded odd. He specifically said it has to be clear in the markup or the data model. It may be on my server - an explicit representation between this image and this text. He said that as long as in the data model, I would be covered. This does not have to be sent to the user.

GR That is a basic underlying principle.

KB Then the requirement is still odd to me.

CS I agree with Kynn there are other ways to get around the problem.

JW There are still issues.

CS I think we are talking about 2 issues.

  1. Should things be associated
  2. Informing the user of other forms of the information

Errata to 3.1

CS As long as not a paragraph.

CMN Problem for magnifiers.

WC Can use Opera to magnify the alt-text of images.

CS Section headings are usually large fonts.

WC Text in images to create logos? Does anyone disagree?

CMN I am not convinced.

JW One could avoid the implication that you can interpret to mean it does not exclude every image.

GV If you can't do something so it will work with the browsers on your site, does 3.1 say "it doesn't matter, AA means you must use markup language."

JW Did we add into the Errata, Ian's proposal in 11.1? That would take care of it.

WC No.

CMN It rules out things that can be done using images that should be done in markup. Use MathML to represent math. What can't be done using markup? You don't have strong control over button appearance - how good is css support?

WC /* restate my proposal */

KB Does proposal cover WAI logo?

WC Yes.Let's keep checkpoint as is, but write a clarification that image ok for logo, navigation buttons, image maps.

GV "until widely supported" - what if 2/3 of browsers support it. Does that mean we switch? We have a question for how long it is that people are required to do things.

WC Since 1.0 errata, i think we can use the until user agent language because 2.0 should be out before until user agent is met.

JW Don't think resolve in 1.0 w/errata change, therefore "when an appropriate markup language exists" means "when supported by user agents."

MM: A lot of companies won't want to put SVG out for public consumption. Once it's out there it can be stolen. A lot of companies use graphical content to protect info so that things can't be perfectly copied. Would people want to adopt SVG?

CMN I don't think that holds. If someone puts an imperfect logo out there is making that logo available whether it is SVG, or gif, or whatever.

GR A legal issue.

CS What about the word "appropriate." What CMN finds appropriate is different than what a legal person finds appropriate.

KB I think most people will want to do specific things that CSS and HTML will not be acceptable solutions. MathML is not acceptable. There are things you can't do.

GV Will be a list or tie back to 11 - where possible to do that using xyz then you must. The word appropriate is vague. It is not from the rule but the explanatory text underneath it.

CMN The alternative interpretation is for cases where CSS works on Netscape and Explorer etc. then the answer is to apply 11.4 and supply 2 versions. That clearly meets the guidelines as written.

Action WC: rework proposal for checkpoint 3.1.

Until user agents proposal

CMN How do we know when user agents are sufficient. I have proposed a set of conditions.

One issue is, how will this pan out internationally. There were two approaches proposed.

  1. say that X number of months after these are available and have been shown to work we expect people to use them. is it 6 months after they become available or localized to a language? we need input on that from non-english speakers. from the european blind union, i hear that there are whole countries where people who are blind use DOS. Therefore, not supporting DOS is an issue.

CS If designing for English, then only concerned about English tools?

CT Who will document what is being used in different countries? And keep it updated?

CS Someone launching a site in a particular area would do that research.

GR even in quote developed unquote countries such as the U.S. and the U.K., for blind/low vision users, at least, the baseline is still either DOS or Windows 95 (or 95B, depending upon when one bought one's system)... why is the critical mass of users reluctant to upgrade? simply because they would rather wrestle with the devils they have come to know (and even master) then take on unknown (and sometimes, depending upon the AT and other hardware available to them, unknowable) opponents... only those who are either: (a) forced to upgrade in order to retain a job; (b) are fortunate to have the resources to be able to afford the hardware and software requisite to upgrade to yesterday's state-of-the-art (let alone the latest-and-greatest); and (c) the adventurous, who tend either to be trained experts in the field of computing or (as in my case) the mulishly stubborn and overly ambitious...

CMN Available technical support is a major issue.

DB I could not find anything in the existing guidelines where we mention that products are free. Do we really want to do that? What about the hardware?

CMN That's another issue.

CT The only thing that is free is unix things (re: AT)

CS The Narrator that ships with Windows 2000 is free, but Windows is not.

CMN Should we be requiring that if you need something free that you live on a linux system. or we require that there be one free solution per platform.. Or does everyone pay the same.

WC What info will help us answer this info?

CMN There are some things that we should just answer.

JW We need to do it in a neutral way to suppliers.

CT We need a way to collect data. Can EO help here?

CMN Probably. They maintain a policy page and an assistive technology and alternative browsing page. We should ask them because they have wider international contacts. The I18N is in a sense simple. There are only a few questions about how to apply the rules we decide on. Then we have to answer the same questions in different languages.

Action JW: Take issue of maintaining info about assistive technology and alternative browsing to Education and Outreach via the Coordination Group.

GR An opportunity for EO to contact disability groups to collect information.

CMN We could look at the components people are using and say "yes" or "no".

CS Like Javascript?

CMN Right: we require CSS Font, don't require CSS positioning, yes JavaScript, etc.

CS That seems a lot easier.

WC Create a profile.

CS Then people pushed to meet that reference.

JW That's UA.

CMN They don't specify technologies.

Action CS: write up a browser profile for what authors should support.

$Date: 2000/11/08 08:27:11 $ Wendy Chisholm