- From: Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 14:39:32 -0500
- To: public-html-a11y@w3.org
- Message-ID: <4ED534F4.9050302@w3.org>
Minutes of the 29 November 2011 Text sub-group of the HTML A11Y TF are
posted to http://www.w3.org/2011/11/29-text-minutes.html and copied below.
Text Alternatives sub-group, HTML Accessibility Task Force
29 Nov 2011
Agenda
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Nov/0219.html>
See also: IRC log <http://www.w3.org/2011/11/29-text-irc>
Attendees
Present
Janina, John_Foliot, Judy, Michael_Cooper, SteveF, [IPcaller],
Léonie_Watson
Regrets
Joshue_O_Connor, Laura_Carlson
Chair
Judy
Scribe
judy, LeonieW, MichaelC
Contents
* Topics <http://www.w3.org/2011/11/29-text-minutes.html#agenda>
1. status check across multiple items
<http://www.w3.org/2011/11/29-text-minutes.html#item01>
2. status of meta name=generator issue?
<http://www.w3.org/2011/11/29-text-minutes.html#item02>
3. any other text-alternatives issues to discuss or track for
now? <http://www.w3.org/2011/11/29-text-minutes.html#item03>
4. WG location of alt guidance doc -- status of change
proposal; new draft(s)
<http://www.w3.org/2011/11/29-text-minutes.html#item04>
* Summary of Action Items
<http://www.w3.org/2011/11/29-text-minutes.html#ActionSummary>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<Judy> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Nov/0215.html
<Judy> scribe: judy
status check across multiple items
JS: still may finish response to Matt, but not to hold up Chairs
JB: can attach response to Matt to Laura's CP or in info in survey
JS: JF asked Jonas to read it; follow up with John Foliot?
JB: will follow up with JohnF
JS: also suggesting checking w/ David B
JB: will do that too
JS: will ask Rich to also check w/ Jonas on this
[that item was topic #2]
status of meta name=generator issue?
JB: status?
JS: Janina and Steve need to talk
JB: schedule something this week?
JS: will try [and had to leave call]
JB: status?
MNC, JB: JF pulling together some kind of team
JB: will check progress w/ John
any other text-alternatives issues to discuss or track for now?
JB: any recent items from the bug-triage sub group to toss over to the
text-alternatives group?
MC: not sure. they're mainly working on providing info on "needs info" bugs.
JB: can you at your next tues meeting of bug triage TF, to confirm that
they've passed everything that they need to to this subgroup, and that
we've caught it all?
MC: searching on that qu now.
...
... status is mixed... "won't fix,"..... "fixed"....
JB: both types need confirmation
MC: so we've gotta check "needs info," "won't fix," and "fixed"
JB: everything needs confirmation, yup
... and there's been a stats request
... # of bugs that were TF-backed, and which ones were tagged w/ a11y
but not necessarily TF-backed
[discussion of bug stats continues, off-topic for text alternative
sub-group call but still waiting for another participant to return to
agenda...]
<scribe> scribe: LeonieW
WG location of alt guidance doc -- status of change proposal; new
draft(s)
JB: There was initial concern about some of the alt guidance in the HTML
draft.
... The plan was to counter that with more experienced guidance from the
accessibility community, and extract it into a separate document.
... It was then thought this information would be better suited as WCAG
techniques or application notes for WCAG.
... There was then a survey that resulted in other suggestions. Things
were then revisited.
... Michael was then actioned to write a rationale for making the
information more in line with accessibility guidance in other specs.
<MichaelC> Draft change proposal
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Jul/att-0095/alt-techs-change-proposal.html>
JB: Another action was to pull some of the less accurate guidance out of
the spec. This hasn't happened yet.
... Meanwhile the alt text document has been updated and continues to
move forward.
<MichaelC> Laura Carlson's feedback
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Jul/0099.html>
JB: Steve, you've put a ton of work into this. Wanted to make sure you
were aware of the background.
<MichaelC> Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis' feedback
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Jul/0098.html>
SF: There is a lot of normative text within the HTML5 spec. I don't see
that moving alt text out of the HTML WG achieves anything.
... It's useful for the document to be there because it's a draft
normative document.
<MichaelC> Philosophical position on location of accessibility advice
that got me into this mess :) <http://www.w3.org/2011/04/locate-a11y-advice>
SF: The alt doc is normative and it has requirements. Sometimes those
requirements conflict with information in either the W3C or WHAT WG specs.
JB: Yes. The step that was missed was pulling the less accurate guidance
out of the HTML5 spec.
... I understand there is stil some transition. The normativity is a
question we may need to revisit. The information you're putting together
is likely to be relevant to far more than the HTML5 spec.
SF: Neither document should provide normative guidance. The guidance
from both documents should be conforming with WCAG 2.0.
JB: The aspects Steve and Michael are working on are complimentary.
MC: I'm working on where the document should be published, rather than
the doc itself.
JB: The guidance needs to keep evolving and to be in discussion,
especially by the people who have the right expertise. It also needs to
be more formally moved in terms of where it's published.
SF: What we have at the moment is the HTML5 spec, which has the
appearance of the authoritative source. Once we resolve the problem of
inaccurate information, everything else will flow from that point.
... If we move it out of the HTML WG we may have less control over it.
... We have a counterpoint within the HTML WG that (I think) provides
more accurate information than the HTML5 spec itself.
JB: What we're trying to do is move this to the next phase. Evolving it
with them, but not having it something that could result in the same
situation as before.
SF: OK. Next steps would be to get the problematic content within the
HTML5 spec modified or removed. Once that happens, there is no need for
a normative document.
JB: There were bugs filed on removing that during last call?
SF: Yes.
JB: I don't think that hinders Michael's work on the place for
publishing this doc.
MC: Listening to Steve, I wonder if that next step is the right one.
JB: I'm not sure there is time for that.
MC: The alt doc isn't under the HTML timeline. Getting the content
removed from the HTML5 spec is.
JB: They're publishing the entire suite in one go, not one at a time.
There won't be a dedicated publicatin for this one doc, unless there's
good reason.
MC: Has it been to last call status?
JB: No. I just don't think we have as much time on this as we think.
... We have bugs filed. We need to be following up to make sure those
bugs are addressed.
... Does anyone know the status on those bugs?
LW: We came across these bugs during a triage review, but I don't know
what status they were off hand.
JB: We need to follow up on those bugs. I'm not sure we should wait on
doing anything else until they're sorted.
SF: What would be unacceptable would be to move the alt doc out from
HTML WG and not have the incorrect information removed from the HTML5 spec.
MC: I'm not sure how the alt doc would pass canndidate recommendation
phase as normative text?
JB: I think this has been looked into before in the long term.
SF: There are objections about the normativity. There will be a second
round of last call, so I think there's time.
... The alt doc is guidance. It's techniques like other WCAG techniques.
JB: Michael, part of your change proposal was to look at te different
types of guidance in the alt doc and where they would map.
MC: I'd prepared a previous document looking into that. I didn't want to
bloat the change proposal though.
... Technology specific advice should be part of the spec.
Implementation guidance should be elsewhere.
... Technology advice = how do I add an alt text. Implementation advice
= how do I write a good text description.
JB: Léonie, can you or anyone take a look at the status of those bugs?
... I won't be available for this call next week, but perhaps the time
could be used to follow up on some of this to provide an update that
Janina and I could take to the chairs?
MC: An hour earlier would be easier for me.
SF: An hour earlier would be ok, but only for 30 mins.
MC: We could wrap up the triage call early, as has been happening
recently anyway?
LW: Yes, we could do that.
<MichaelC> scribe: MichaelC
SF: also need to work on meta generator and title
JB: Janina wants to schedule phone call on that
SF: OK
JB: Update on meta generator?
JF: s/generated content/generated content/
... starting to think of it as a UAAG issue than an HTML 5 issue
JB: anything need to be pulled from HTML 5?
JF: Think not
can check into that
JB: so issue for UAAG is that generated content needs to be exposed
what are next actions?
JF: there is a bug in the system, awaiting editor response
anticipating response will be it's not HTML 5 issue
JB: let's proactively alert UAWG
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13668
MC: if JF can add this info to the bug, editor will have something to go on
JF: will do
JB: also update TF
JF: ok
<Judy> this text alts sub group will meet again in two weeks
<Judy> ...on dec 13th
<Judy> ...at 1pm US EST
<scribe> chair: Judy_Brewer
Summary of Action Items
[End of minutes]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl
<http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm>
version 1.136 (CVS log <http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/>)
$Date: 2011/11/29 19:35:54 $
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
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, 29 November 2011 19:39:54 UTC