- From: Jeanne Spellman <jeanne@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 17:15:56 -0400
- To: AUWG <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Minutes:
http://www.w3.org/2009/08/17-au-minutes
IRC Log:
http://www.w3.org/2009/08/17-au-irc
Summary of Action Items
ACTION: AM will review section A2 for Techniques.
ACTION: AR to to review section B.1 for Techniques (tentative assignment)
ACTION: FB to review section A.4 for Techniques (tentative assignment)
ACTION: GP to review section A.3.4-7 for Techniques (tentative assignment)
ACTION: JR to fix is->are in B.2.4.3
ACTION: JR to incorporate these B.2.4 ideas into new tech wording proposal
ACTION: JS to review A1 for Techniques
ACTION: SN to section review A.3.1-3 for Techniques
ACTION: TB to review section A.4 for Techniques
Text of Minutes
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
WAI AU
17 Aug 2009
[2]Agenda
[2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2009JulSep/0026.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2009/08/17-au-irc
Attendees
Present
Jeanne, +1.208.123.aaaa, Jan, +1.561.582.aabb, SueAnnN, AnnM,
+1.208.123.aacc
Regrets
Jutta_T., Andrew_R., Tim_B., Andrew
Chair
Jan Richards
Scribe
jeanne
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]review of editors' draft
2. [6]HTML5
3. [7]INtents in B.2.4
* [8]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
<scribe> scribe: jeanne
review of editors' draft
<scribe> meeting: AUWG Teleconference
<scribe> chair: Jan
<scribe> ACTION: JS to review A1 for Techniques [recorded in
[9]http://www.w3.org/2009/08/17-au-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-176 - Review A1 for Techniques [on Jeanne
Spellman - due 2009-08-24].
JR: August 31 is UK bank holiday, but the following week is Labor
Day, and we don't want to go so long without a meeting, so is it ok
if we meet on the 31st?
AM: Ok with me.
<scribe> ACTION: AM will review section A2 for Techniques. [recorded
in [10]http://www.w3.org/2009/08/17-au-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-177 - Will review section A2 for
Techniques. [on Ann McMeekin - due 2009-08-24].
AM: I will not be available for the next meeting, but will post
notes to the email list.
<scribe> ACTION: SN to section review A.3.1-3 for Techniques
[recorded in
[11]http://www.w3.org/2009/08/17-au-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-178 - Section review A.3.1-3 for
Techniques [on Sueann Nichols - due 2009-08-24].
<scribe> ACTION: GP to review section A.3.4-7 for Techniques
(tentative assignment) [recorded in
[12]http://www.w3.org/2009/08/17-au-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-179 - Review section A.3.4-7 for
Techniques (tentative assignment) [on Greg Pisocky - due
2009-08-24].
<scribe> ACTION: TB to review section A.4 for Techniques (tentative
assignment) [recorded in
[13]http://www.w3.org/2009/08/17-au-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - TB
<scribe> ACTION: Tim to review section A.4 for Techniques (tentative
assignment) [recorded in
[14]http://www.w3.org/2009/08/17-au-minutes.html#action06]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Tim
<scribe> ACTION: FB to review section A.4 for Techniques (tentative
assignment) [recorded in
[15]http://www.w3.org/2009/08/17-au-minutes.html#action07]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-180 - Review section A.4 for Techniques
(tentative assignment) [on Frederick Boland - due 2009-08-24].
<scribe> ACTION: AR to to review section B.1 for Techniques
(tentative assignment) [recorded in
[16]http://www.w3.org/2009/08/17-au-minutes.html#action08]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-181 - To review section B.1 for Techniques
(tentative assignment) [on Andrew Ronksley - due 2009-08-24].
<Jan>
[17]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2009JulSep/0024.h
tml
[17]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2009JulSep/0024.html
<Jan>
[18]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2009JulSep/0025.h
tml
[18]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2009JulSep/0025.html
HTML5
JR: HTML5 is an important specification to W3C and to Authoring
tools. We have been asked by WAI CG to review the spec for this
Wednesday.
JR reviews the email for discussion.
<Jan> 4.8.2.1.13 Guidance for markup generators
<Jan> Markup generators (such as WYSIWYG authoring tools) should,
wherever possible, obtain alternative text from their users.
However, it is recognized that in many cases, this will not be
possible.
<Jan> For images that are the sole contents of links, markup
generators should examine the link target to determine the title of
the target, or the URL of the target, and use information obtained
in this manner as the alternative text.
<Jan> As a last resort, implementors should either set the alt
attribute to the empty string, under the assumption that the image
is a purely decorative image that doesn't add any information but is
still specific to the surrounding content, or omit the alt attribute
altogether, under the assumption that the image is a key part of the
content.
<Jan> Markup generators should generally avoid using the image's own
file name as the alternative text.
<Jan> Guideline B.2.4 Assist authors with managing alternative
content for non-text content.
<Jan> B.2.4.1 Editable: Authors are able to modify alternative
content for non-text content. This includes types of alternative
content that may not typically be displayed on screen by user
agents. (Level A)
<Jan> B.2.4.2 Automated suggestions: During the authoring session,
the authoring tool can automatically suggest alternative content for
non-text content only under the following conditions: (Level A)
<Jan> * (a) Author control: authors have the opportunity to accept,
modify, or reject the suggested alternative content prior to
insertion; and
<Jan> * (b) Relevant sources: the suggested alternative content is
only derived from sources designed to fulfill the same purpose
(e.g., suggesting the value of an image's "description" metadata
field as a long description).
<Jan> B.2.4.3 Let user agents repair: After the end of an authoring
session, the authoring tool does not attempt to repair alternative
content for non-text content using text values that is equally
available to user agents (e.g., the filename is not used). (Level A)
<Jan> B.2.4.4 Save for Reuse: Authors have the option of having any
recognized plain text alternative content that they enter (e.g.,
short text labels, long descriptions) stored for future reuse.
(Level AA)
JR: Section B.2.4.4 will be flagged as a section of concern to AUWG.
<Jan>
[19]http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2009/ED-ATAG20-TECHS-20090814/#principl
e-support-author
[19]
http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2009/ED-ATAG20-TECHS-20090814/#principle-support-author
INtents in B.2.4
<Jan> B.2.4.1 Editable: Authors are able to modify alternative
content for non-text content. This includes types of alternative
content that may not typically be displayed on screen by user
agents. (Level A)
<Jan> The intent of this Success Criterion is to ensure that authors
can add alternative content for non-text objects and modify that
alternative text in the future. If the type of alternative content
(e.g., alternative text) is not displayed by a WYSIWYG editing view,
another mechanism is provided for modifying that content.
<Jan> JS: INclude more generic things about applications, incl
canvas
<Jan> JS: Maybe be more clear that we mean built in and linked
alternatives as appropriate
<Jan> B.2.4.2 Automated suggestions: During the authoring session,
the authoring tool can automatically suggest alternative content for
non-text content only under the following conditions: (Level A)
<Jan> * (a) Author control: authors have the opportunity to accept,
modify, or reject the suggested alternative content prior to
insertion; and
<Jan> * (b) Relevant sources: the suggested alternative content is
only derived from sources designed to fulfill the same purpose
(e.g., suggesting the value of an image's "description" metadata
field as a long description).
<Jan> The intent of this Success Criterion is to prevent the
production of alternative content that is not useful to an end user
because it has not been approved by an author and/or it is derived
from unreliable sources. Authors who are unfamiliar with
accessibility may approve alternative content suggestions without
understanding the problems these can cause for end users.
<Jan> JR: More relevant sources examples?
<Jan> AM: That could help guide people in the right direction
<Jan> JR: A few more dood examples and a few more bad
<Jan> ACTION: JR to incorporate these B.2.4 ideas into new tech
wording proposal [recorded in
[20]http://www.w3.org/2009/08/17-au-minutes.html#action09]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-182 - Incorporate these B.2.4 ideas into
new tech wording proposal [on Jan Richards - due 2009-08-24].
<Jan> B.2.4.3 Let user agents repair: After the end of an authoring
session, the authoring tool does not attempt to repair alternative
content for non-text content using text values that is equally
available to user agents (e.g., the filename is not used). (Level A)
<Jan> The intent of this Success Criterion is to ensure that if the
authoring tool does attempt to automatically repair missing
alternative content, the repair does not imply that the alternative
content has been provided by or approved by the author. In some
cases, the authoring tool will have text information, such as
contextual information (e.g., the image is the author's profile
picture) that...
<Jan> ...the user agent does not have equal access to, in which
case, the repair can be made.
<Jan> ACTION: JR to fix is->are in B.2.4.3 [recorded in
[21]http://www.w3.org/2009/08/17-au-minutes.html#action10]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-183 - Fix is->are in B.2.4.3 [on Jan
Richards - due 2009-08-24].
<Jan> JS: Because of rapidly advancing technology in the area of
image porocessing we're not limiting that input to alt text
<Jan> JR: But if the format has a way to label that as autogenerated
then that should be used
<Jan> JR: Maybe we should also say we intend the repair to be only
in place until the next author session opens
<Jan> JR: Should we acknowledge that we know this is last gasp
<Jan> AM: Yes until the author comes back and gets a chance to amend
<Jan> B.2.4.4 Save for Reuse: Authors have the option of having any
recognized plain text alternative content that they enter (e.g.,
short text labels, long descriptions) stored for future reuse.
(Level AA)
<Jan> The intent of this Success Criterion is to ensure that when
the author has spent effort providing alternative content, this
content is retained by the authoring tool in a form that allows it
be easily reused
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: AM will review section A2 for Techniques. [recorded in
[22]http://www.w3.org/2009/08/17-au-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: AR to to review section B.1 for Techniques (tentative
assignment) [recorded in
[23]http://www.w3.org/2009/08/17-au-minutes.html#action08]
[NEW] ACTION: FB to review section A.4 for Techniques (tentative
assignment) [recorded in
[24]http://www.w3.org/2009/08/17-au-minutes.html#action07]
[NEW] ACTION: GP to review section A.3.4-7 for Techniques (tentative
assignment) [recorded in
[25]http://www.w3.org/2009/08/17-au-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: JR to fix is->are in B.2.4.3 [recorded in
[26]http://www.w3.org/2009/08/17-au-minutes.html#action10]
[NEW] ACTION: JR to incorporate these B.2.4 ideas into new tech
wording proposal [recorded in
[27]http://www.w3.org/2009/08/17-au-minutes.html#action09]
[NEW] ACTION: JS to review A1 for Techniques [recorded in
[28]http://www.w3.org/2009/08/17-au-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: SN to section review A.3.1-3 for Techniques [recorded
in [29]http://www.w3.org/2009/08/17-au-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: TB to review section A.4 for Techniques (tentative
assignment) [recorded in
[30]http://www.w3.org/2009/08/17-au-minutes.html#action05]
[NEW] ACTION: Tim to review section A.4 for Techniques (tentative
assignment) [recorded in
[31]http://www.w3.org/2009/08/17-au-minutes.html#action06]
[End of minutes]
_________________________________________________________
Received on Monday, 17 August 2009 21:16:06 UTC