- From: Geoff Freed <geoff_freed@wgbh.org>
- Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 19:42:46 -0400
- To: "public-html-a11y@w3.org" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
- CC: "faulkner.steve@gmail.com" <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
>From today's minutes:
<snip>
SF: just add terse recommendation with links as needed
<scribe> ACTION: Steve - add terse statement about
role="presentation" to RS and JB's prose and repost to list
[recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2011/04/25-text-minutes.html#action03]
JB: Geoff -- please respond to SteveF's posts from the past several
days
GF: will do
</snip>
As assigned, I read through the chairs' decision on issue 31/80 at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0451.html, as well as Steve's recent posts in the a11y TF archives. I think I'm caught up on the title/alt topic. It will be no surprise for me to say that I'm in full agreement with Steve's objections. Steve, let me know what I can do to help with the action above.
Thanks.
Geoff/NCAM
________________________________________
From: public-html-a11y-request@w3.org [public-html-a11y-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Gregory J. Rosmaita [oedipus@hicom.net]
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2011 1:46 PM
To: public-html-a11y@w3.org
Subject: [text] minutes: Text Alternatives Subgroup telecon 2011-04-25 [draft]
aloha!
minutes from the 25 april 2011 Text Alternatives Subgroup of the
HTML Accessibility teleconference can be accessed as hypertext at:
http://www.w3.org/2011/04/25-text-minutes.html
as an IRC log at:
http://www.w3.org/2011/04/25-text-irc
and as plain text following this announcement -- as usual, please
log any errors, omissions, mis-attributions, clarifications, and
the like by replying-to this announcement on-list...
please note that the following 5 ACTION ITEMS were assigned at
the 2011-04-25 telecon:
* ACTION-121: judy , geoff to look into figcaption & alt decision
* http://www.w3.org/2011/04/25-text-minutes.html#action01
* http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/121
* ACTION-122: Rich and Steve to draft reply to role="presentation"
sub-decision for discussion at next week's meeting
* http://www.w3.org/2011/04/25-text-minutes.html#action02
* http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/122
* ACTION-123: Steve - add terse statement about role="presentation"
to RS and JB's prose and repost to list
* http://www.w3.org/2011/04/25-text-minutes.html#action03
* http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/123
* ACTION-124: JohnF, judy, sean work on reclarification email on
poster-alt (alt-poster)
* http://www.w3.org/2011/04/25-text-minutes.html#action04
* http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/124
* ACTION: Gregory to draft clarification email for @summary for
HTML WG chairs for review and approval by this subgroup
* http://www.w3.org/2011/04/25-text-minutes.html#action05
* http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/125
_________________________________________________________
- DRAFT -
HTML-A11Y Text Alternatives Sub-Group Teleconference
25 Apr 2011
Agenda:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Apr/0262.html
See also: IRC log - http://www.w3.org/2011/04/25-text-irc
Attendees
Present
Eric_Carlson, Geoff_Freed, Gregory_Rosmaita, John_Foliot,
Judy, Lynn_Haldworth, Marco_Ranon, Rich, Steve_Faulkner,
janina
Regrets
laura_carlson
Chair
judy_brewer
Scribe
gregory_rosmaita
Contents
* Topics
1. Action Item Review
2. Review of HTML WG Chairs' Decisions on Text Alternatives
3. Verbose Description Requrirements: Updated discussion on
edited requirements: questions, timeline to comment
4. Draft clarification on title/alt (Rich/Judy drafting,
will
5. Update on formal objection on normative accessibility
6. Continue planning clarification mails on rejected
7. Recap of action items and timelines
* Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
<judy> agenda reference
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Apr/0262.html
<judy> scribe: gregory_rosmaita
<judy> http://www.w3.org/2011/04/18-text-minutes.html#ActionSummary
<judy> (please associate new actions with "text" product in tracker
<judy> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/open )
<judy>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0453.html ;
<judy>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0452.html ;
<judy>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0451.html
<judy> timeline to comment
<judy>
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Verbose_desc_reqs#Requirements
<judy> send); discussion of approach (outline; detail; request):
questions,
<judy> timeline to comment, support?
<judy> guidance on alt
<judy>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Apr/0175.html
<judy> ; options, questions, timeline to comment, text sub-group?,
next steps
<judy> accessibility features: outlining key response points;
drafting
<judy> details; who; when; escalation path
<judy> scribe 2 weeks out; adjourn.
<scribe> scribe: gregory_rosmaita
<scribe> scribenick: oedipus
Action Item Review
http://www.w3.org/2011/04/18-text-minutes.html#ActionSummary
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/open
JB: text product to associate action items to
close agendum
Review of HTML WG Chairs' Decisions on Text Alternatives
JB: 3 that fall into this category
... reviewing in detail
<judy>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0453.html ;
<judy>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0452.html ;
<judy>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0451.html
JB: 3 new ones - at least 2 fall under this subgroup's purview;
third might as well
... one has to do with validation of @alt
... another normative guidance for @alt
... validation of @alt -- Rich and i began to mock-up a draft of
something to review in response -- consult
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0451.html
<judy>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0451.html
JB: 6-part decision -- 6 sub-items on whether HTML5 validates with
or without presence of @alt, @title, FIGCAPTION, etc.
... response missing info on how @alt works as opposed to @title
(@alt has default place in visual rendering; @title does not and is
transitory
... advice on Alt Text Techs -- WAI CG has interest in responding to
this
http://www.w3.org/WAI/CG/
ISSUE-31 / ISSUE-80 requirements survey:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0453.html
JB: what text to use for IMG element definition
GJR: this is our 1 win
... changed precisely in way submitted to HTML WG
JB: further action needed?
<JF> +1
<janina> +1
SF: nothing further
plus 1
<MRanon> +1
JB: other items fall in scope of this group?
SF: yes
GJR: yes
JF: yes
<janina> yes
JB: any objections?
Verbose Description Requrirements: Updated discussion on edited
requirements: questions, timeline to comment
JB: quick check for now
<judy>
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Verbose_desc_reqs#Requirements
JB: discussed last week whether having agreed-upon set of reqs from
us would be helpful
... 9 items currently
... Rich only person to provide comments since last week
... anyone else have chance to review Verbose Desc Reqs this week
and thoughts upon them?
... thanks to RichS for comments -- GJR integrated some and
documented others
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Talk:Verbose_desc_reqs
JF: will look at it this week
JB: any comments?
JF: clarification -- further feedback, straight up review --
specific deliverable?
JB: specific requirements may help form consensus on this TF for
clarification -- haven't walked through too many clarifications as
consensus activity, some of these may map against
arguements/lack-of-agreement
... hoping to come up with good consensus capture of overall
principles and figure out points-of-discussoin -- like to address
this week on list and next week at call
... like to spend more time talking about clarification emails today
... will review requirements
JS: will review
reviewers: JF, JS, JB (already reviewed RS, GJR)
JF: request if comment use the [text] subject line tag
GF: will review, too
Draft clarification on title/alt (Rich/Judy drafting, will
JB: @alt and @title validation -- sent email to RS this morning --
can you clean-up and bounce-to-list?
RS: send note to list?
JB: suggested that add edits i made, strip out what indicated, and
post to list -- can do myself
RS: please do JB
JB: posting now
... Rich and i looked at the chairs' decision on validation of @alt
which has 6-sub-positions in it
... noted that there appear to be some things that chairs' didn't
understand as reflected in decision; collection of decisions of
considerable concern; took premise that while a FO may need to be
forwarded, wanted to reply to decision specifically
... 1 approach: respond to everything incorrect in decision, or
highlight most important mistakes/errors
... RS found that 4 of 6 sub-decisions problematic
... would like to know if attendees agree with conclusion, and that
this email captures subgroup's understanding
... 4 items: 1) aria-labelledby does not make @alt conforming; 2)
role="presentation" does not make missing @alt conforming; 3)
missing @title ok if no @alt; 4) FIGCAPTION
<JF> +Q
JF: skipped over meta name="generator"
... if put meta name="generator" in HEAD would allow author to not
add any @alt AND validate
... personal email exception -- i shape my email in accordance with
the person to whom i am sending the emessage
JB: any disagreement that need consensus clarification on 1)
aria-labelledby does not make @alt conforming; 2)
role="presentation" does not make missing @alt conforming; 3)
missing @title ok if no @alt; 4) FIGCAPTION, 5) meta
name="generator"
SF: figcaption issue?
JB: 1st reaction, caption can't stand in for @alt
... looked at material on-line -- FIGCAPTION in publishing has
specific purpose with nothing to do with @alt -- haven't had chance
to check against HTML5 draft; mis-match of purpose in my opinion
... sceintific publication, have terse caption that encapsulates
image context, but not sufficient as @alt
<JF> +q
GF: agree with JB -- FIGCAPTION used for totally diff purpose than
@alt -- not sure if strictly used as visible label, but conflating
the 2 is a HUGE mistake
SF: allowing use of FIGCAPTION not to replace @alt --
... @title becomes caption below image -- if person can't provide
@alt, if do provide CAPTION for it, will be conforming, but not
neccessarily accessible
... cases where users can't or will not provide @alt
JF: this is a problem, but this is the least of the issues facing us
... if i post pic of cat on flickr and use caption "the neighborhood
cat" --- need to investigate positive implications
... is caption appropriate @alt text? better than 73525.jpg
JB: like to review with Geoff -- FIGCAPTION use generally and
specifically -- may be substantially different
... like some examples
... goal of what is conforming is something that is accessible --
whatever we agree to in TF, has to be something specific
GF: will work with Judy on this
<judy> ACTION: judy , geoff to look into figcaption & alt decision
[recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2011/04/25-text-minutes.html#action01]
JB: anyone have questions about other items RS and i identified?
JS: a bit confused -- don't want to set policy on bad UI design
(flickr case)
... concern about conflating caption and @alt
... caption like a comment on IMG; @alt is description of IMG
RS: aria-labelledby conforming -- rationale -- if author uses
aria-labelledby to point to visual image, when turn image off, will
have label present with image, so operates same as @alt
... use @alt or @aria-labelleby -- with labelledby saying this
belongs to this particular image -- label probably centered in area
reserved for image
... similar to figcaption
... showing label associated with image
SF: issues with labelledby is there is no need for text to be
physically associated with image -- can be anywhere on page -- when
image disappears, could be problematic -- FIGCAPTION has to be
inside figure next to image
<JF> +1 to Stevef
SF: with labelledby need text alternative, can't be caption because
of way mapped in a11y APIs -- no way to say this is not a text
equivalent but a caption -- FIGCAPTION has semantic meaning; can't
mistake caption for @alt
RS: view CAPTION as label
JF: more direct association
... looking at web page with list of speakers at conference -- have
phone numbers -- if images turned off, have big blank square and
loss of binding
<Zakim> janina, you wanted to say Flicker's inadequate ml shouldn't
define good enough alt
MR: people use text with images using HTML4 -- use text as label for
image, but not programmtically associated -- with HTML5 using
CAPTION can be programmatically associated, but htere are cases
where caption provides more info than contained in image
... authors can use labels in diff ways -- should provide authoring
advice for labelledby and FIGCAPTION
... as we did for @alt
JB: appreciate discussion --
... wonder if people could take on individual sections to refine and
post to list in next few days so can file comprehensive
clarification email request by friday so can look at it at next
monday's meeting and vote on consensu
<JF> +q
JB: level of detail -- would like to explore specific coordinated
comprehensive clarification on each item and then sending them to
HTML WG chairs with some urgency
JF: concerned about meta name="generator" -- currently discussion on
list
... Leif raised some really good points and done very good research
about auto-generated meta strings
JB: would like to proceed as quickly as possible -- terse response
useful, may want to hold 1 or more aside to get full consensus --
idally would be good to pass along whole package at once
starter draft response (JB and RS)
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Apr/0287.html
JB: would generator change to decision or clarification presented
JF: if start multiple attacks on individual issues, may be subject
to divide and conquer counter-strategy
... will chairs accept sub-decision comments individually?
JB: invite discussion --- suggest that we do as much work as
possible, so reply to as much as can now, perhaps add comments later
... with meta name="generator" sounds like JF willing to help with
drafting?
JF: yes
JB: Rich do you want to clarify the aria-labelledby sub-decision
RS: don't need to argue with decision -- don't care if made argument
or not -- using aria-labelledby is not overwritten by @alt
JB: drop aria-labelledby?
[no objections]
RS: can still use, NOT a replacement for @alt
JB: support clarification as written?
JF: preence of role="presentation" should not make @alt
non-conforming
RS: failure condition if have @alt and role="presentation"
JS: think they want alt="" for presentational images
RS: redundant
JS: agree
JF: authoring tools will always insert alt="something" -- if don't
put in value, most will put in alt="" -- presentation role is
additional info -- whay if add one remove other?
RS: if marked role="presentation" no reason to add alt="" -- author
designated as presentational
JS: problem other way around -- encourage use of role="presentation"
less ambiguous than alt=""
<JF> not a hill I'm willing to die on
RS: @alt with role="presenetation" eliminates need for alt="" and
includes it in A11y API level -- want to keep presentation from a11y
APIs -- stuck with @alt
SF: agree with RS, but in HMTL5 says @alt="" is same as
role="presentation" which means that any img with alt="" is
equivalent to role="presentation"
RS: either or correct?
SF: prefer to use role="presentaion" because is clearer semantically
-- counsel use both or one (role="presentation")
RS: role="presentation" does what we need
SF: role="presentation" is in a11y layer; alt="" will be represented
differently in view where images disabled -- if role="presentation"
won't treat same way -- need to treat null alt as
role="presentation"
JB: could RS and SF take this discussion to email and report back to
the group?
SF: yes
RS: will do my best
JB: rescanning 6 issues: aria-labelleby decision ok?
... role="presentation" needs more info from RS and SF
<scribe> ACTION: Rich and Steve to draft reply to
role="presentation" sub-decision for discussion at next week's
meeting [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2011/04/25-text-minutes.html#action02]
JB: please review contents of
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Apr/0287.html
and let us know if section beginning "title"...
"Unlike alt="", role="presentation" has the added value of removing
the image from the accessibility API object tree, effectively
filtering out the image and improving assistive technology
performance. Furthermore, a role of resentation is to state the
intent of the author in a declarative fashion. For these reasons,
role="presentation" should be considered a suitable alternative
to requiring alt when it adds no meaningful information to an
AT."
SF: agree with what is in email, have further comments and ideas
... will list what i perceive as problems, add to RS and JB's prose
and repost to list
JB: propose your terse addition? link to more detailed explanations
fine
SF: just add terse recommendation with links as needed
<scribe> ACTION: Steve - add terse statement about
role="presentation" to RS and JB's prose and repost to list
[recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2011/04/25-text-minutes.html#action03]
JB: Geoff -- please respond to SteveF's posts from the past several
days
GF: will do
JB: FIGCAPTION needs more investigation and a report back to group
<JF> +q
<gfreed> +q
JB: for FIGCAPTION, would like for us to consense a comprehensive
reply to this by next monday's meeting or early in the week, and
send these as clarification to the chairs; then see if
reclarification is needed; and proceed with formal objections with
expedited appeal as needed
JF: when look at 6, 2 critical ones are meta name="geneartor" and
@title as replacement for @alt
... FIGCAPTION and labelledby worth looking at but not "dying" for
... severity: @tltle and generator most severe
JB: looking at comprehensive clarification on what we do not agree
with in decsions
JF: getting clarification back may be useful
JB: want to get comprehensive clarification request out as soon as
possible
JF: suggesting that as move forward, some things more critical to
others
GF: agree with JF -- @title in place of @alt is a SERIOUS problem
<JF> +1 t Geoff
<judy> s/early in the week/early in the week, and send these as
clarification to the chairs; then see if reclarification is needed;
and proceed with formal objections with expedited appeal as needed
GF: don't want to break implementations -- drove home to everyone to
use @alt -- changing that to say @title is ok is going to mess up a
lot of work already done-- not a good idea period
JB: draft email has very terse clarifications -- appears to me there
are multiple misunderstandings in charis' decision
... may be important from POV of priciples
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Apr/0287.html
<gfreed> +q
GF: if not mistaken, most SRs come with there presets defaulting to
@alt not @title
... SR users often don't personalize settings
JB: add as comment to section?
GF: ok
JB: want to make 3 comments on other decisions -- location of @alt
techniques (WAI CG responding to that -- may be able to review in
detail next monday
Update on formal objection on normative accessibility
JB: any objections to waiting for WAI CG report/draft
... already a formal objection from SF on this
... clarification that may set basis for formal objection
Continue planning clarification mails on rejected
JB: scope includes rejections on @longdesc, @summary for TABLE, and
@poster
... email discussion on each of these -- some very lengthy -- can we
prepare parrallell clarification emails
... for @longdesc there is enough material to fill a book --
posibliity of starting more formal dialouge based on terse
extraction from @longdesc materails
... poster issue may be easiest to tackle -- JF work with someone to
turn into parrallell comment / basis for future formal objection
JF: filed FO on alt poster -- said technical stuff inconsistent,
even though requested assistance on technical stuff
JB: would you work with someone (probably JB) to draft next-round
clarification and re-draft reply with JB to prepare something for
the group to review next monday
JF: sean hayes of MS has offered to help me with technical portion
of FO
<gfreed> geoff has to run.
JB: anyone who wants to write a sentence or 2 on alt poster?
... can we have draft clarification email for monday for voting on
monday by group
... assume that people have read pertinent emails
<judy> ACTION: JohnF, judy, sean work on reclarification email on
poster-alt (alt-poster) [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2011/04/25-text-minutes.html#action04]
JB: techincally "poster alt" but should be "alt poster"
... table sujmmary -- draft of clarification email?
GJR: have a CP for summary as element
JB: GJR can you draft email in format of email RS and JB circulated
GJR: yes, will ping if necessary
<scribe> ACTION: clarification email for @summary for HTML WG chairs
[recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2011/04/25-text-minutes.html#action05]
JB: @longdesc
... LauraC been in touch -- was going to try to attend last part of
call -- may need to try to stablize discussion and get clarification
of things at this time that could send from this subgroup to chairs,
see what chairs reply and depending on circumstances draft an FO
... may make sense to work on other responses this week to get
template and basis for future work
Recap of action items and timelines
RS: Steve and i will look at section on role="presentation" and @alt
JB: Rich ok to scribe next week?
RS: yes
JF: looking at meta generator to produce terse text; working with JB
on alt poster
GJR: @summary for table
JB: scribe volunteer for 2 weeks from today?
MR: won't be on call next week (bank holiday in UK)
... won't be available for next 2 weeks
JB: meeting next monday, same time, same IRC channel
[ADJOURNED]
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: judy , geoff to look into figcaption & alt decision
[recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2011/04/25-text-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: Rich and Steve to draft reply to role="presentation"
sub-decision for discussion at next week's meeting [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2011/04/25-text-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: Steve - add terse statement about role="presentation"
to RS and JB's prose and repost to list [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2011/04/25-text-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: JohnF, judy, sean work on reclarification email on
poster-alt (alt-poster) [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2011/04/25-text-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: ACTION: Gregory to draft clarification email for
@summary for HTML WG chairs for review and approval by this
subgroup [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2011/04/25-text-minutes.html#action05]
[End of minutes]
_________________________________________________________
Received on Monday, 25 April 2011 23:43:17 UTC