W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > April 2011

RE: [text] minutes: Text Alternatives Subgroup telecon 2011-04-25 [draft]

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>
Message-ID: <B3526F4AC3C3C64388BF661A8B2112A7679D49FFCC@EXCHCCR.wgbh.org>

>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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:19 UTC