W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > February 2012

Minutes Re: [text] HTML-A11Y Text, Tues 7 February 2012, 17:00 Z, (1PM Eastern), 90 min

From: Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 15:12:08 -0500
Message-ID: <4F318598.30909@w3.org>
To: public-html-a11y@w3.org
Minutes of the 7 February Text sub-team meeting are posted to
http://www.w3.org/2012/02/07-text-minutes.html and copied below.

  HTML-A11Y Text Alternatives Sub-Group

    07 Feb 2012

See also: IRC log <http://www.w3.org/2012/02/07-text-irc>


    Judy, David_MacDonald, Cooper, Janina_Sajka, Steve_Faulkner
    MichaelC, janina


    * Topics <http://www.w3.org/2012/02/07-text-minutes.html#agenda>
         1. check meta name generator CP poll is underway or completed
         2. review, discuss, and as appropriate approve updates to
            change proposal on Title
         3. review, discuss, and as appropriate approve updates to CP on
            WG location of alt guidance
         4. review, discuss, and as appropriate approve updates to CP on
         5. check status of response on longdesc CP
         6. confirm next meeting; identify next scribe; adjourn
    * Summary of Action Items



<Judy> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/notitlev2

<David> test

<MichaelC> scribe: MichaelC

      check meta name generator CP poll is underway or completed

<Judy> JS: sent out the 48-hour poll this morning

<Judy> ...link is at

jb: just call for objections?

js: right; responses make it a poll, we just want objections

      review, discuss, and as appropriate approve updates to change
      proposal on Title

jb: Text Sub-Team gave feedback last week to Steve

-> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/notitlev2 Change
proposal on title

so no changes made since our last meeting

jb: timeline?

-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Jun/0315.html

js: this is a reconsideration request

<Judy> jb: not annotated with the right response deadline date in

mc; don't see that in the timeline

Change proposal tracking table

jb: so we need an updated change proposal by this Saturday (11 Feb)

js: not clear it applies

this is reopen, not escalation process

mc: Feb 11 is deadline for all issues

jb: remember a different timeline

<everyone looking>

sf: plan to complete title change proposal by end of this week

hopefully in time for Thursday's meeting

jb: let's make sure to get review of a version Thursday

even if further edits to be made before Saturday

<Judy> [judy: and then come back later for specific subteam updated
review and then TF approval, as needed]

text sub-team may have additional feedback to make also

      review, discuss, and as appropriate approve updates to CP on WG
      location of alt guidance


^ Change proposal on location of alt from Michael

<janina> scribe: janina

michael: mostly a rationale, still unsure of what and how best to say

<David> www.ssa.gov/accessibility/files/SSA_Alternative_Text_Guide.pdf

<MichaelC> scribe: MichaelC

js: expect chairs will see lots of assertions but no evidence

mc: yes, exactly my worry, I've been struggling with this issue

<Stevef> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Jun/0315.html

jb: summary should be a little more detailed

to include synopsis of rationale

js: also note this is a request to reconsider decision on HTML-ISSUE-31

jb: also break down into specific points

sf: unsure of priority of moving this doc

mc: think importance of that is related to the proposal to change the
version embedded in HTML spec to point to the external version

if the embedded version is removed, we may be less concerned about who
owns the version pointed to instead

but if it's retained in HTML, it may be more important for WCAG to have
an accessibility-authoritative alternate version

sf: really location of doc isn't our primary issue, it's the (normative)
problematic guidance within the HTML spec

we want to move non-lexical guidance out and keep lexical guidance in
the spec

mc: the spec currently defines as lexical requirements stuff we think
should not be considered as lexical

so hard to argue about moving non-lexical stuff because as cast it's
currently arguably lexical

dmd: there are blog entries criticizing html5, for it's 20 page
alternative text document, so I encourage its move to WCAG

js: seems there is a strong desire to keep this in HTML

(outside of a11y community)

mc: in part the chairs have encouraged competing versions of the same
requirements (in various cases) with goal that market forces will pick a

perhaps they want to retain in HTML so that process can continue

jb: but don't think that will work for us

think we still need to move it

but current draft change proposal not there yet

jb: add that HTML spec has incorrect and overly detailed info on text

mc: that's a "says who" situation

jb: point to bugs, which are filed by people with recognized expertise
on accessibility

mc: what about critiques in the chair decision on HTML-ISSUE-31?

e.g., there were statements that "X is unsubstantiated" but don't know
where to begin to find details they will accept

sf: this is a reopen request, so we have to address the issues raised

in the chair decision

js: responding on the terms the chairs laid out doesn't leave us much
wiggle room

jb: so MC to add edits

      review, discuss, and as appropriate approve updates to CP on

jb: still have some work to do on figcaption

      check status of response on longdesc CP

<Judy> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Feb/0058.html

<Judy> this is the review summary from Maciej, including input from the
other HTML5 Co-Chairs

jb: need to provide comprehensive response

Laura has replied and will probably want to help

<Judy> ...and would probably also appreciate help

<Judy> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Feb/0058.html

js: still seem not to understand why aria-describedby not workable

not a way to provide long description of an image

mc: for off-page descriptions

js: but on-page descriptions not workable because they intrude for
mainstream users

also we need to have rich text, but AAPIs don't get rich text from
targets of aria-describedby

have to have a longdesc-type arc to get a version where rich text available

js: wonder if they don't understand the rich text issue, or if they
dispute the requirement

could clarify that in a question to them

<Judy> jb: go for it

      confirm next meeting; identify next scribe; adjourn

jb: looking at times for next week

SF and MC both not available

exploring other times, but nothing great

will stick with existing time, with regrets

    Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]
Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl
version 1.136 (CVS log <http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/>)
$Date: 2012/02/07 20:06:08 $


Michael Cooper
Web Accessibility Specialist
World Wide Web Consortium, Web Accessibility Initiative
E-mail cooper@w3.org <mailto:cooper@w3.org>
Information Page <http://www.w3.org/People/cooper/>
Received on Tuesday, 7 February 2012 20:14:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:26 UTC