- From: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
- Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 14:18:41 -0700 (PDT)
- To: <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Friends, The Minutes from today's teleconference call can be found here: http://www.w3.org/2011/10/04-text-minutes.html ...or in plain text immediately after this announcement. As is always the case, corrections and comments should be posted to this list. JF ********* A11Y TF Text sub-team Minutes 04 Oct 2011 See also: IRC log Attendees Present Judy Janina JF LeonieWatson Regrets Chair judy Scribe LeonieWatson Contents Topics Longdesc longdesc: JF-response to Jonas; JS-response to Matt's updated proposal. table summary: expanding use cases <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ReinstateTableSummary> generated content: update on new discussion sub-group <http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13668> bug 8645, alt text for images <http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8645> other business? meta name generator, returning from TF other business? meeting time Summary of Action Items <scribe> scribe: LeonieWatson Longdesc 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 write? 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 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ReinstateTableSummary> 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 cases. 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 then. 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 <http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13668> 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 talk. bug 8645, alt text for images <http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8645> 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 information. 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 alts. ... 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> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposal/meta_name%3Dgenerator_does_n ot_make_missing_alt_conforming 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 long. ... 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 UTC