W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > December 2010

minutes: HTML Accessibility Task Force 2010-12-09 [draft]

From: Gregory J. Rosmaita <oedipus@hicom.net>
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 18:01:03 +0000
To: public-html-a11y@w3.org
Message-Id: <20101209175834.M36380@hicom.net>

minutes from the 9 December 2010 HTML Accessibility Task Force can 
be accessed as hypertext from:


as an IRC log at:


and as plain text following this announcement -- as usual, please 
report any errors, clarifications, mis-attributions, and the like
by replying-to this announcement on-list


                             - DRAFT -

            HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

09 Dec 2010


  See also: IRC log - http://www.w3.org/2010/12/09-html-a11y-irc


         Eric_Carlson, Gregory_Rosmaita, John_Foliot, Jon_Gunderson,
         Léonie_Watson, Martin_Kliehm, Michael_Cooper, Paul_Cotton,
         Richard_Schwerdtfeger, Steven_Faulkner, Mike_Smith,
         Cynthia_Shelly, Marco_Ranon

         Everett_Zufelt, Laura_Carlson, Joshue_O'Connor,
         Silvia_Pfieffer, Janina_Sajka, Kenny_Johar, Denis_Boudreau,




    * Topics
        1. Agenda Review
        2. HTML WG Issues TF Needs to Explore
    * Summary of Action Items

  <trackbot> Date: 09 December 2010

  <paulc> paulc is on mute

  <paulc> Agenda request from paulc in

  <oedipus> i have a message from everett -- he's been ill and due to
  health issues everett will not be able to fulfill his commitment and
  is not available at the time being

  <oedipus> scribe: Gregory_Rosmaita

  <oedipus> scribenick: oedipus

Agenda Review

  MS: what is at top of agenda is issue about the HTMLWG issue 122

  PC: have you asked for changes to agenda?

  MS: anything to add?

  PC: sent an email request in last half hour

  <JF> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9452

  MS: additional tracks issue

  PC: last pre-last call bug to be processed by 8 december 2010 --
  email discussion on TF list --chairs recommend mark as NEEDSINFO and
  put tracker request on it to escalate it -- TF already working on
  change proposal for this bug

  MS: fairly big deal
  ... comment from MJS on this bug that was intriguing

  PC: just want to discuss what chairs are planning to do to tell the
  TF what we are planning to do and give notice -- if pushback, would
  like to hear it


  JF: certainly 1 thing that media sub-group is aware of -- open
  issue; didn't have full call -- devs missing; we need to focus on
  track -- spent a lot of time looking at timestamp format -- escalate
  to issue to track better would be ok by me -- may change
  speed/energy expended on this -- next on priority list -- being
  tracked at procedural level
  ... does that answer your qauestion, PC?

  PC: 2 outcomes: 1) NEEDSINFO without tracker request - would have
  until late january to escalate; since already working on change
  proposal, and since that bug is assigned not to editor but to TF,
  best thing to do is to escalate to isssue
  ... willing to join a media call to discuss timelines, schedules and

  JF: sounds fair
  ... will put at top of agenda for last media subgroup call before
  ... if chairs want to make issue and put into issue tracker, then
  they should

  PC: thanks, JF

  <paulc> going back on mute

HTML WG Issues TF Needs to Explore

  MS: issue 122


  <trackbot> ISSUE-122 does not exist

  <JF> MS: requesting a brief summary of issue 122 Lady of Shalott

  MS: complicated situation -- 2 diff change proposals put forward
  from working group one from GJR one from Laura

  <inserted> scribenick: JF

  2 change proposals - 1 from Gregory and the other from Laura

  what to do?

  Greg: my change proposal came from direct instruction from the Task

  reflects what was agreed upon at the F2F at TPAC

  also ram by the group 2=3 weekes ago

  many feel that Greg has consensus behind what he presented

  <paulc> Actually I believe Laura's proposal is older.

  <MikeSmith> action-94?

  <trackbot> ACTION-94 does not exist

  seems Laura's proposal is older than Greg's

  this is one of the reasons why it was discussed at TPAC

  Laura is not on the call nor was at TPAC


  MS: we need to follow up with Laura to see what her thoughts are

  <oedipus> addresses:

  seems that the 2 change proposals are contradictory

  <oedipus> fulfillment of ACTION 195

  want to have 1 that the TF can endorse

  <oedipus> A purely decorative image that doesn't add any

  <oedipus> If an image is decorative but isn't especially
  page-specific -- for example, an image that forms part of a
  site-wide design scheme -- the image should be specified in the
  site's or document's CSS, not in the markup of the document.

  <oedipus> Exceptions to this rule, in cases where CSS cannot be used
  to display an entirely decorative image, are covered by the HTML5:
  Techniques for providing useful text alternatives. [HTML ALT TECHS]
  Authors are also encouraged to consult the Web Content Accessibility
  Guidelines 2.0 for more detailed information and acceptable
  techniques. [WCAG 2.0]

  <inserted> scribenick: JF

  Greg's action item was to specifically re-write

  SF: The genesis of this was based upon a bug around alt text

  which then became a larger issue

  <Zakim> oedipus, you wanted to say that my impression is that laura
  wants more push-off from spec to SteveF's alt tech document, i
  support, but not generic W3C citations, but direct

  <Stevef> provide text alternatives for images feedback from Everett
  Zufelt http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11027

  <MikeSmith> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11027

  <inserted> scribenick: oedipus

  SF: disconnect between lady of shallot related to poem and lady of
  shallot to provide atmosphere - everett said that if IMG used, must
  have @alt - conformance restrictions in spec correct? don't think
  have conformance

  JF: part of problem can be explained by leonie -- remember a blog
  post she wrote about this -- some blind users find @alt "extra
  chatter" and others want nothing -- factors involved: sighted person
  who lost sight who has rich visual library in head versus user blind
  since birth without visual touchpoints/reference --- conceptual
  ideas that can't be visualized -- problem: trying to find a...
  ... one-size-fits all solution

  SF: should it be non-conforming to provide @alt in that case?

  JF: "non-conforming"?

  SF: yes -- non-conforming to provide @alt for "decorative" lady of
  shallott example

  JF: personal opinion -- should not be non-conforming -- don't want
  to be judgemental thing -- WCAG issue, not HTML5 issue

  SF: agree - that's why i think should be non-conforming

  <Marco_Ranon> +1 to JF

  LW: agree -- restricting it way is in spec at moment is too
  hard-line an approach -- cannot differentiate between decorative and
  content images for individual authors, but blind users should be
  able to skip image descriptions like sighted users skip visual

  CS: should be up to author to decide - if author wants to be
  conforming with decorative image, should use alt="" -- legitimate
  design decision

  SF: we seem to be in fairly broad agreement

  <Zakim> cyns, you wanted to say that @alt should be conforming but
  not required in that circumstance

  <Zakim> oedipus, you wanted to ask what happens if alt="Boston city
  skyline" and role="presentation"

  CS: ARIA imp guide says image not in a11y API at all, but alt string
  in DOM -- if AT should use or offer user-configurability

  JF: all in general agreement that everett's point in original bug,
  logical conclusion is to advance it forward -- status of bug right

  SF: don't agree with everything everett says -- criticism of example
  in alt techs document --
  ... author's decision -- atmospheric image adding visual niceity to
  text around it, but is possiblity of doing both -- remember this is
  alt techs bug, not spec bug
  ... 2 points of view that need to be resolved are what is in alt
  techs doc and what is in the spec

  JF: majority of people on call think softer stance the better
  position -- hardline stance in HTML5 is too hardline and has
  potential for harm (undefined @alt) -- HTML5 spec wrong, alt techs
  are right -- is that decision need to make?

  SF: when chairs opened up this bug/issue to all of the documents,
  wasn't clear to me or others -- hixie defending strict conformance
  as editorial issue, which it is NOT -- issue has not been framed
  well -- needs to be better articulated for all concerned
  ... chairs need to do what they need to do to disambiguate -- alt
  techs document and spec -- need convergence or one replacing the
  other, but have to make that decision before we can reach consensus
  -- don't know process, need help/word from chairs

  JF: does TF have to go back to chairs to request formal changes to

  SF: chairs have to deal with bloat of issue somehow -- reason for so
  many bugs and change proposals -- need to get more clarity all
  around -- need to know process for resolving it

  LW: go back to HTML WG chairs -- identified something that needs to
  be addressed, here is a plan, and how do we proceede

  SF: yes
  ... raised this issue of clarity on last call i attended -- PCotton
  said would get chairs to reply but no reply from chairs

  PC: on mute -- doing research

  JF: how much is this related to issue 31? still out there -- on
  agenda for this call -- author conformance reqs for @alt on images

  SF: specific instance of more general issue

  JF: Alt Techs document is included in HTML5 suite of documents --
  status of Alt Techs will go from ED to WD

  SF: published as WD three times (with next pub)

  JF: change proposal for issue 31 is adopt SteveF's document as
  replacement for what is in HTML5

  <paulc> The Chairs provided our view in

  JF: if Alt Techs document in direction we discussed today and your
  doc addresses this we should put forward that as change proposal for
  issue 31 would that solve this bug as well

  <paulc> This is when we proposed that any change proposal for
  ISSUE-122 should speak to ALL the WGs documents.

  <paulc> My email to Laura this week was simply asking her to follow
  that direction.

  SF: yes, it would; hit on something important -- alt techs spec
  contains normative guidance that contradicts normative guidance in
  HTML5 spec -- needs to be resolved -- is a conformance req document,
  not an informative document -- normative document on how @alt
  attribute should be used and how to provide a good one

  <paulc> The Chairs objective is to ensure that any changes to the
  family of HTML5 specs make the specs consistent.

  PC: put in link to email from MJS
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Oct/0393.html -- 
  said any proposal must make documents consistent -- concern
  over contradictory info in 2 diff documents
  ... problem with laura's change proposal originally -- updated to
  include what documents and what can should be changed
  ... objective of chairs is to ensure that change in one document
  alligned with other documents so no contrary advice given

  JF: the issue is more than lady shallott but larger concern conveyed
  by chairs

  PC: without a doubt -- pushback from editors when accepted change
  proposals which in view of editor have been incomplete in context of
  making change in one place and leaving contradictory material in
  same or other related document
  ... chairs want to bring deficiencies forward -- 2 documents that
  cover same material should be made consistent, whether WG endorses
  changes is separate matter

  Re: ISSUE-122 (shalott-example) - Expanded scope and Call for

  SF: referred to above emessage -- need for clarification -- hixie
  claimed "chairs violating own process"

  PC: speaking on my own as a chair, one man's issue is another man's
  waste of time -- chairs let threads die on wg list because that
  should be for technical discussion, not debate
  ... sent out call for proposal and got reply that "this is a waste
  of time" -- chairs not going to get into position of being
  subjective about tracker requests and escalations because think can
  be done by WG by refusing ChangeProposals and refusing to endorse
  change proposals when surveyed
  ... here today to nail down things before 10 december deadline
  ... change proposal for 122 lady of shallot needs specificity

  GJR: my action item issue-22 lady of shallot change proposal:
  (reflects consensus at TPAC 2010 HTML WG F2F) covers this

  <paulc> paulc leaving to get ready for WG Weekly meeting

  JF: anyone have anything to discuss before we adjourn?

  [no response]


Summary of Action Items

  [End of minutes]

Received on Thursday, 9 December 2010 18:01:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:55:49 UTC