- From: Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 14:41:02 -0500
- To: public-html-a11y@w3.org
- Message-ID: <4F2843CE.6040102@w3.org>
Minutes of the 31 January 2012 Text sub-team minutes are posted to www.w3.org/2012/01/31-text-minutes and copied below. Text Sub-Team, HTML Accessibility Task Force 31 Jan 2012 Attendees Present Janina_Sajka, David_MacDonald, Michael_Cooper, Judy_Brewer, Steve_Faulkner Regrets Chair Judy Scribe Judy, MichaelC, Janina Contents * Topics <cid:part1.00050903.01030100@w3.org> 1. check that TF-request adjustment on meta name generator CP proposal was completed, and that poll is underway <cid:part2.03050607.07040302@w3.org> 2. review, discuss, and as appropriate approve updates to change proposal on Title <cid:part3.06070400.02030008@w3.org> 3. review progress and or discussion questions on change proposal on WG location of alt <cid:part4.08090800.09030806@w3.org> * Summary of Action Items <cid:part5.08000606.06090705@w3.org> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ check that TF-request adjustment on meta name generator CP proposal was completed, and that poll is underway <Judy> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposal/meta_name=generator_does_not_make_missing_alt_conforming <Judy> scribe: Judy JB: Had Steve updated the CP per TF request? JS: No, but confirmed that his mention of potential negative consequences was pro-forma only there, since the neg consequences weren't real; and he therefore supports the edit to CP. JB: So who will make the change? JS: Michael can you make that edit please? MC: done. JB: Thx. JS: I'll poll this now. ... Also I still need to update the consensus policy, but for now we'll proceed under current one. JB: Mike Smith gave a nice summary in TF call of the case for this CP. review, discuss, and as appropriate approve updates to change proposal on Title <MichaelC> scribe: MichaelC <Judy> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/notitlev2 jb: quick review of above, hope to take to TF for approval js: primary argument is not to consider content of @title as adequate substitute for @alt not supported in all environments particularly mobile, and no plans to introduce support so it leaves a hole jb: change since our last review? js: minor clarifications mc: unfortunately the changes were made at a new URL instead of the existing one, so we can't take advantage of the wiki history <Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say re "no graphical browsers provide input device indpendent access to title attribute content" they will probably ask for which browsers we checked etc. mc: ^ sf: will provide references on title vs alt, title used as caption mc: confused, we're talking title, not figcaption here <Zakim> Judy, you wanted to suggest a clearer summary on the CP on Title, similar to changes in meta generator summary and to suggest a clearer lead-in to the Rationale section jb: ^ lots of interesting points, but not sure from which direction they're intended helpful to tie them specifically to the chairs' decision more than already <discussion of wiki format> unsure of relevance of all the points dmd: unsure about validation vs wcag conformance issues, could be more clear sf: the point is that there's no difference to screen reader user experience instead of allowing title, for captions would be better semantically to push people into figure/figcaption dmd: that makes sense, but not sure that comes across in this draft sf: ok, see what clarifications I can make jb: good start, queuing up the arguments helpful, just need to clean up sf: note the decision encourages convergence of @title and @alt when we'd like to see focus on figure/figcaption more for some of those use cases <Stevef> New information: decision promotes convergence of alt and title behaviours particularly could use review of section: above review progress and or discussion questions on change proposal on WG location of alt jb: Yay, SF and MC both here! <Judy> scribe: Janina judy: Believe michael looking for input? <Stevef> got kicked off firefox crashed michael: Main item is whether we want to argue both having html5 spec point to Steve's alt doc AND move Steve's doc to a more appropriate pub location judy: Wants to note that the location of Steve's doc is affecting other W3C work, but also work outside of W3C--it's confusing people michael: think it's more difficult to fight the fight judy: not sure why, michael: already had feedback from one careful reviewer judy: also believe it can be explained <MichaelC> Draft change proposal on location of alt <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Jul/att-0095/alt-techs-change-proposal.html> <MichaelC> Feedback from Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis on above change proosal <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Jul/0098.html> <Judy> scribe: Judy JS: concerned that if we go at this sequentially, it will also confuse people; better to lay out the whole case. ... yes we need the spec to point to appropriate guidance; never said any differently. MC: difficult to state arguments for moving the doc out <janina> michael: only arguments for moving doc out of html applicable to other specs and needs to be managed by knowledgable people <janina> judy: think there're more arguments <scribe> scribe: Janina michael: or perhaps we need two cp's, one for each issue judy: thought we'd agreed on that janina: i like two separate cp's judy: I was of the opinion that Michael, you were working on location and Steve was working on getting the HTML spec to point to appropriate guidance ... Michael, can you separate procedurally michael: of course judy: we're not obligated to keep them together? michael: no janina: separate them! judy: Steve, are you resuming removing inappropriate alt guidance in html specs? ... Procedurely, do we not need a cp to remove the inappropriate alt language in the html specs? steve: Had not planned to pursue those bugs further judy: A cp may be the better tool at this point michael: I'll send the spec corrective parts to Steve and focus on location steve: think we need to discuss this more ... do we mean all bad alt language in spec? examples included? or just direct wcag contradiction? judy: you have the better view of all that's there michael: suggest we encourage html to keep proper lexical examples that demonstrate correct use ... design guidance regarding the content that makes up the text of the alt should point to appropriate doc janina: I agree judy: need to drop, steve can't stay long michael: let's plan then ... Can send you the spec related pieces today, then we should talk about coordination of the two proposals ... proposes to talk with steve friday steve: looks good michael: and we can go from there steve: good <Stevef> http://dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/#m5 janina: thanks 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 1.135 (CVS log <http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/>) $Date: 2012/01/31 19:34:36 $ -- 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, 31 January 2012 19:41:20 UTC