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

[Minutes] HTML-A11Y TF (text-team) Teleconference on 5 October

From: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 14:18:41 -0700 (PDT)
To: <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-ID: <010f01cc82db$30c75400$9255fc00$@edu>

The Minutes from today's teleconference call can be found here:

...or in plain text immediately after this announcement. As is always the
case, corrections and comments should be posted to this list.



A11Y TF Text sub-team Minutes
04 Oct 2011

See also: IRC log




        longdesc: JF-response to Jonas; JS-response to Matt's updated
        table summary: expanding use cases
        generated content: update on new discussion sub-group
        bug 8645, alt text for images
        other business?
        meta name generator, returning from TF
        other business?
        meeting time
    Summary of Action Items

<scribe> scribe: LeonieWatson
longdesc: JF-response to Jonas; JS-response to Matt's updated proposal.

JB: zakim, take up agendum 1
... John will send his response to Jonas tonight. Next, Janina and John
need to co-ordinate to talke through a response to Matt, which Janina will

JF: Yes.

JB: If you guys could get going tomorrow that would be helpful.

JF: Let's do 11.30 tomorrow?

JS: Yes. Could throw in some media stuff as well.
table summary: expanding use cases

JB: Issue is that we had a prepared response from Josh, feedback from
Laura including two questions.
... Janina was going to review, and Lynne was going to look at the use

JS: Yes, was going to compare against the chair's response.

JB: What's your timeline?

JS: Can do it for Tuesday, not sure about Monday.

JB: Wonder if there is a way to review this with Josh before then?
Otherwise could run up against TPAC.

JS: Perhaps TPAC would give us a good opportunity to look at this?

JB: I think it would be a mistake not to move forward with things before

JS: The review needs a little care to make sure it addresses all the
arguments from the chairs.
generated content: update on new discussion sub-group

JF: This may not be an issue. Need to look into it.
... Really would like to talk to Steve and Tab about this.

<Judy> [john, janina, leonie, sub-team discussion on generated content]

JB: What's the time frame for that conversation?

JF: It's been busy here, difficult to say.
... My instinct says there's something we need to look into here, but I'd
like to be sure.
... Example is a background image added through scripting to identify a
file format type in a link. To me, that's important information.
... I believe that could be a problem, but I'm not sure.

JS: It's something PF has discussed before.

JF: Tab says generated content should be exposed to the DOM and available
to ATs.
... That's ok, but let's look at another use case. A form with required
fields. There are programmatic techniques such as ARIA, but a visual
indicator is also needed. If the same CSS selectors were used, that
information would not be acknowledged by ATs.

JS: Would depend on the AT. You do need to know that a field is required.

LW: We've experienced situations like this recently. Think the issue is
worth exploring.

JB: Sounds like focus will be after longdesc and the response to Matt, and
after the media check John?

JF: Yes.

JB: You can kick this off in the next week John?

JF: In the next couple of weeks. Think TPAC may be a good opportunity to
bug 8645, alt text for images

JB: This came up from the TF telecon last week.

JF: Think we can close this by addressing each point.
... Point 5 has been overtaken by other stuff.
... Point 4 is addressed in Steve's document.
... Point 3 is being dealt with.
... With a little more time and research the rest of the points could also
be addressed in similar ways.

JS: Best way to close this is with pointers to the duplicates and other

JF: Suggest push back to the bug triage team or ask someone else.

JS: Suggest Laura perhaps?
... Happy to contact Laura to ask.
other business?
meta name generator, returning from TF

JS: I didn't see any categorical statement that said it isn't cool to have
an image without an alt.
... Seems to me we might want to say that.

JF: My understanding is that the metadata string in the header makes
images without alt conforming.

JS: What I'm missing is the categorical statement that images must have
... Metadata enables a dodge of this. We shouldn't condone a dodge.

JF: What's important is that images must have an alternative. How we
provide that is a different thing.
... We need to say that all images, unless otherwise specified for a good
reason, must have alternative text descriptions.

JS: I can go with that.

JF: You're suggesting a single sentence or statement?

JS: Yes. I'm nervous about not having this statement included.
... otherwise this is a great response, it's all good.


JF: A summary would be a useful addition. It might also be a good place to
include Janina's statement. Perhaps we could ask Steve to do this? The
rest of the change request is very well drafted.

JS: What's the best way to follow up on this?
... I could take a look at the summary.

JB: There are a few things: The summary, couple of sentences to introduce
the rationale, and a review of the flow of some of the content.

JS: I can take a run at this. My instinct is that it wouldn't take too
... Not sure I agree with the negative effect. Anyone else?

JF: I tend to agree. It's the Flikr use case. What to we do when someone
uploads 200 pictures? We don't have an answer. I think Steve is saying
that by insisting alt is provided, we're going to find a problem.

JB: Think this is a minor negative effect, and that should be stated.
Metadata generator shouldn't be a get out clause though.
... Propose that Janina offers her thoughts on the negative impact and
let's bring it back to the reading attention of this group as well.
... I think we should look at the conformance class change section.

JF: Rich might be the best person to look at this?

JB: Couldn't one of us articulate it?
other business?
meeting time

JB: We had feedback from attendees that this time might work.
... Joshu, Laura and others have said this time would be difficult.

<Judy> judy welcomes feedback from others not here today about this
time-slot, in case we need to change off of mondays

JF: Any chance of pushing it later on a Tuesday?

JB: That would be tricky for UK and CET folks.

JF: What about 2pm Boston (7pm GMT) or 11am my time?

JB: Will wait for feedback from others. Next week I think we'll keep it at
this time.
Summary of Action Items
[End of minutes]
Received on Tuesday, 4 October 2011 21:19:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:42:47 GMT