- From: Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 15:12:08 -0500
- To: public-html-a11y@w3.org
- Message-ID: <4F318598.30909@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>
Attendees
Present
Judy, David_MacDonald, Cooper, Janina_Sajka, Steve_Faulkner
Regrets
Chair
Judy
Scribe
MichaelC, janina
Contents
* Topics <http://www.w3.org/2012/02/07-text-minutes.html#agenda>
1. check meta name generator CP poll is underway or completed
<http://www.w3.org/2012/02/07-text-minutes.html#item01>
2. review, discuss, and as appropriate approve updates to
change proposal on Title
<http://www.w3.org/2012/02/07-text-minutes.html#item02>
3. review, discuss, and as appropriate approve updates to CP on
WG location of alt guidance
<http://www.w3.org/2012/02/07-text-minutes.html#item03>
4. review, discuss, and as appropriate approve updates to CP on
figcaption
<http://www.w3.org/2012/02/07-text-minutes.html#item04>
5. check status of response on longdesc CP
<http://www.w3.org/2012/02/07-text-minutes.html#item05>
6. confirm next meeting; identify next scribe; adjourn
<http://www.w3.org/2012/02/07-text-minutes.html#item06>
* Summary of Action Items
<http://www.w3.org/2012/02/07-text-minutes.html#ActionSummary>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<Judy>
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposal/meta_name%3Dgenerator_does_not_make_missing_alt_conforming
<http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposal/meta_name=generator_does_not_make_missing_alt_conforming>
<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
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012Feb/0041.html
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
Timeline
js: this is a reconsideration request
<Judy> jb: not annotated with the right response deadline date in
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Accessibility_Change_Proposal_Status
mc; don't see that in the timeline
->
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Accessibility_Change_Proposal_Status
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
<Judy>
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/Text_Alternatives_Ownership
^ 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
winner
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
alternatives
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
figcaption
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
<http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm>
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