See also: IRC log
<scribe> scribe: jeanne
<scribe> meeting: AUWG Teleconference
<scribe> chair: Jan
<scribe> ACTION: JS to review A1 for Techniques [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/08/17-au-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-176 - Review A1 for Techniques [on Jeanne Spellman - due 2009-08-24].
JR: August 31 is UK bank holiday, but the following week is Labor Day, and we don't want to go so long without a meeting, so is it ok if we meet on the 31st?
AM: Ok with me.
<scribe> ACTION: AM will review section A2 for Techniques. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/08/17-au-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-177 - Will review section A2 for Techniques. [on Ann McMeekin - due 2009-08-24].
AM: I will not be available for the next meeting, but will post notes to the email list.
<scribe> ACTION: SN to section review A.3.1-3 for Techniques [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/08/17-au-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-178 - Section review A.3.1-3 for Techniques [on Sueann Nichols - due 2009-08-24].
<scribe> ACTION: GP to review section A.3.4-7 for Techniques (tentative assignment) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/08/17-au-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-179 - Review section A.3.4-7 for Techniques (tentative assignment) [on Greg Pisocky - due 2009-08-24].
<scribe> ACTION: TB to review section A.4 for Techniques (tentative assignment) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/08/17-au-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - TB
<scribe> ACTION: Tim to review section A.4 for Techniques (tentative assignment) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/08/17-au-minutes.html#action06]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Tim
<scribe> ACTION: FB to review section A.4 for Techniques (tentative assignment) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/08/17-au-minutes.html#action07]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-180 - Review section A.4 for Techniques (tentative assignment) [on Frederick Boland - due 2009-08-24].
<scribe> ACTION: AR to to review section B.1 for Techniques (tentative assignment) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/08/17-au-minutes.html#action08]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-181 - To review section B.1 for Techniques (tentative assignment) [on Andrew Ronksley - due 2009-08-24].
<Jan> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2009JulSep/0024.html
<Jan> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2009JulSep/0025.html
JR: HTML5 is an important specification to W3C and to Authoring tools. We have been asked by WAI CG to review the spec for this Wednesday.
JR reviews the email for discussion.
<Jan> 4.8.2.1.13 Guidance for markup generators
<Jan> Markup generators (such as WYSIWYG authoring tools) should, wherever possible, obtain alternative text from their users. However, it is recognized that in many cases, this will not be possible.
<Jan> For images that are the sole contents of links, markup generators should examine the link target to determine the title of the target, or the URL of the target, and use information obtained in this manner as the alternative text.
<Jan> As a last resort, implementors should either set the alt attribute to the empty string, under the assumption that the image is a purely decorative image that doesn't add any information but is still specific to the surrounding content, or omit the alt attribute altogether, under the assumption that the image is a key part of the content.
<Jan> Markup generators should generally avoid using the image's own file name as the alternative text.
<Jan> Guideline B.2.4 Assist authors with managing alternative content for non-text content.
<Jan> B.2.4.1 Editable: Authors are able to modify alternative content for non-text content. This includes types of alternative content that may not typically be displayed on screen by user agents. (Level A)
<Jan> B.2.4.2 Automated suggestions: During the authoring session, the authoring tool can automatically suggest alternative content for non-text content only under the following conditions: (Level A)
<Jan> * (a) Author control: authors have the opportunity to accept, modify, or reject the suggested alternative content prior to insertion; and
<Jan> * (b) Relevant sources: the suggested alternative content is only derived from sources designed to fulfill the same purpose (e.g., suggesting the value of an image's "description" metadata field as a long description).
<Jan> B.2.4.3 Let user agents repair: After the end of an authoring session, the authoring tool does not attempt to repair alternative content for non-text content using text values that is equally available to user agents (e.g., the filename is not used). (Level A)
<Jan> B.2.4.4 Save for Reuse: Authors have the option of having any recognized plain text alternative content that they enter (e.g., short text labels, long descriptions) stored for future reuse. (Level AA)
JR: Section B.2.4.4 will be flagged as a section of concern to AUWG.
<Jan> http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2009/ED-ATAG20-TECHS-20090814/#principle-support-author
<Jan> B.2.4.1 Editable: Authors are able to modify alternative content for non-text content. This includes types of alternative content that may not typically be displayed on screen by user agents. (Level A)
<Jan> The intent of this Success Criterion is to ensure that authors can add alternative content for non-text objects and modify that alternative text in the future. If the type of alternative content (e.g., alternative text) is not displayed by a WYSIWYG editing view, another mechanism is provided for modifying that content.
<Jan> JS: INclude more generic things about applications, incl canvas
<Jan> JS: Maybe be more clear that we mean built in and linked alternatives as appropriate
<Jan> B.2.4.2 Automated suggestions: During the authoring session, the authoring tool can automatically suggest alternative content for non-text content only under the following conditions: (Level A)
<Jan> * (a) Author control: authors have the opportunity to accept, modify, or reject the suggested alternative content prior to insertion; and
<Jan> * (b) Relevant sources: the suggested alternative content is only derived from sources designed to fulfill the same purpose (e.g., suggesting the value of an image's "description" metadata field as a long description).
<Jan> The intent of this Success Criterion is to prevent the production of alternative content that is not useful to an end user because it has not been approved by an author and/or it is derived from unreliable sources. Authors who are unfamiliar with accessibility may approve alternative content suggestions without understanding the problems these can cause for end users.
<Jan> JR: More relevant sources examples?
<Jan> AM: That could help guide people in the right direction
<Jan> JR: A few more dood examples and a few more bad
<Jan> ACTION: JR to incorporate these B.2.4 ideas into new tech wording proposal [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/08/17-au-minutes.html#action09]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-182 - Incorporate these B.2.4 ideas into new tech wording proposal [on Jan Richards - due 2009-08-24].
<Jan> B.2.4.3 Let user agents repair: After the end of an authoring session, the authoring tool does not attempt to repair alternative content for non-text content using text values that is equally available to user agents (e.g., the filename is not used). (Level A)
<Jan> The intent of this Success Criterion is to ensure that if the authoring tool does attempt to automatically repair missing alternative content, the repair does not imply that the alternative content has been provided by or approved by the author. In some cases, the authoring tool will have text information, such as contextual information (e.g., the image is the author's profile picture) that...
<Jan> ...the user agent does not have equal access to, in which case, the repair can be made.
<Jan> ACTION: JR to fix is->are in B.2.4.3 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/08/17-au-minutes.html#action10]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-183 - Fix is->are in B.2.4.3 [on Jan Richards - due 2009-08-24].
<Jan> JS: Because of rapidly advancing technology in the area of image porocessing we're not limiting that input to alt text
<Jan> JR: But if the format has a way to label that as autogenerated then that should be used
<Jan> JR: Maybe we should also say we intend the repair to be only in place until the next author session opens
<Jan> JR: Should we acknowledge that we know this is last gasp
<Jan> AM: Yes until the author comes back and gets a chance to amend
<Jan> B.2.4.4 Save for Reuse: Authors have the option of having any recognized plain text alternative content that they enter (e.g., short text labels, long descriptions) stored for future reuse. (Level AA)
<Jan> The intent of this Success Criterion is to ensure that when the author has spent effort providing alternative content, this content is retained by the authoring tool in a form that allows it be easily reused
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135 of Date: 2009/03/02 03:52:20 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Found Scribe: jeanne Inferring ScribeNick: jeanne Default Present: Jeanne, +1.208.123.aaaa, Jan, +1.561.582.aabb, SueAnnN, AnnM, +1.208.123.aacc Present: Jeanne +1.208.123.aaaa Jan +1.561.582.aabb SueAnnN AnnM +1.208.123.aacc Regrets: Jutta_T. Andrew_R. Tim_B. Andrew Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2009JulSep/0026.html Got date from IRC log name: 17 Aug 2009 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2009/08/17-au-minutes.html People with action items: am ar fb gp jr js sn tb tim WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]