W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > July 2010

Re: Add rationale or exclude role="presentation", aria-labelledby & aria-labelled attributes from alt change proposal? Help needed. (was Re: ISSUE-31 Change Proposal)

From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2010 09:49:53 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTilzqnxsm_XleeTF53F3j_TqpEMeqeB7otoHK6lf@mail.gmail.com>
To: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
Hello Everyone,

As you know the HTML WG Chairs asked that rationale be provided for
the aria-labelledby and aria-labelled and role="presentation" options
in the alt "Replace img Guidance for Conformance Checkers" Change
Proposal [1] for HTML Issue 31.

I asked the accessibility task force for help to supply rationale [2].

To date I have received no response to my inquiry.

Maciej asked [3] that I exclude the aria-labelledby and aria-labelled
and role="presentation" options, if I did not add rationale.

I have done so in a new change proposal. This proposal allows <img>
only to be valid with <alt> or <figcaption>. This new offering is at:
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20100707

I did find some bullet points stating advantages for aria-labelledby
in Steve's "HTML5: Techniques for Providing Useful Text Alternatives"
[4]. So I created an additional new change proposal for <img> to be
valid only with <alt> or <figcaption> or aria-labelledby. It is at:
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20100706

Maciej, Sam, and Paul, please add these two new additional change
proposals to the change proposal table for Issue 31 [5]:

1. <img> valid only with <alt> or <figcaption> or aria-labelledby
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20100706

2. <img> valid only with <alt> or <figcaption>
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20100707

I also added Steve's bullet points to the original (accessibility task
force endorsed) change proposal. [1]

If anyone can supply text which delineates rationale for and
role="presentation" or labelledby or further/better rationale for
aria-labelledby please, please speak up, I would be delighted to add
it to the original proposal and ImgElement20100706.

Thank you.

Best Regards,
Laura

[1] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20090126
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Jun/0213.html
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jun/0588.html
[4] http://www.w3.org/TR/html-alt-techniques/
[5] http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/issue-status.html#ISSUE-031

Related References asking for task force help on Issue 31 change proposal:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Jan/0310.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Feb/0008.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Mar/0007.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Apr/0134.html

On 6/24/10, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> -public-html
> +public-html-a11y
>
> Maciej has asked [1] for added rationale in the alt change proposal
> for role="presentation", aria-labelledby & aria-labelled attributes.
>
> Or else he suggests excluding these three options from the proposal.
>
> He has said what we currently have is factual description of what
> these mechanisms are and what they do. But we have no reason for why
> the spec should be allowed to omit alt when one of these is present.
>
> So should I remove these options? Or does anyone have suggest text to
> add to the proposal to justify these options better?
>
> The current text in the change proposal states [2]:
>
> QUOTE
>
> Added Options which Address Accessibility
>
> The language of WCAG2 allows a text alternative to be expressed in
> other ways besides the alt attribute. Three cases in particular
> distinguish syntax for cases, which yield more accessible content.
>
> role="presentation" Attribute
>
> role="presentation" programmatically conveys to assistive technology
> that an image is presentational and not of interest.
>
> aria-labelledby and aria-labelled Attributes
>
> When the natural concise text alternative is available elsewhere on a
> page the aria-labelledby and aria-labelled attributes can be an
> accessible alternative for an image as it programmatically conveys
> meaning to assistive technology. For example:
>
> <h2 id="bronze">Bronze Medal</h2>
> <!-- Some page content -->
> <img src="bronzemedal.png" aria-labelledby="bronze">
>
> UNQUOTE
>
> All guidance and suggestions greatly appreciated. Thank you.
>
> Best Regards,
> Laura
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jun/0588.html
> [2]
> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20090126#Added_Options_which_Address_Accessibility
>
>
> On 6/23/10, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Jun 23, 2010, at 11:30 AM, Laura Carlson wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Sam,
>>>
>>> I think/hope that I have now addressed the concerns that you have
>>> raised.
>>> I:
>>>
>>> 1. Added rationale for all changes.
>>> 2. Removed the reference to the paragraph-section-heading loophole, as
>>> Ian indeed removed it from the spec per as requested in Bug 9217.
>>> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9217
>>> I just hope it doesn't reappear in the spec.
>>>
>>> In addition, I updated all three of my current proposals for Issue 31.
>>> So far, all together I have three proposals and possibly a fourth.
>>> They are:
>>>
>>> 1. Replace img Guidance for Conformance Checkers. January 26, 2010.
>>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20090126
>>> In this one I tried to incorporate WAI CG's advice.
>>> http://www.w3.org/2009/06/Text-Alternatives-in-HTML5
>>
>>
>> I still don't see any rationale given for the following three alt
>> exemptions
>> added by your change proposal:
>>
>> * aria-labelledby attribute present (non-empty only)
>> * aria-label attribute is present (non-empty only)
>> * role attribute is present and has a value of "presentation".
>>
>> The "Rationale" section has a factual description of what these
>> mechanisms
>> are and what they do, but as far as I can tell, no reason is given for
>> why
>> it should be allowed to omit alt when one of these is present. Please
>> either
>> add rationale for these changes or adjust the scope of the Change
>> Proposal
>> to exclude them.
>>
>>
>> There are also rationale sections relating to a "CAPTCHA Loophole" and a
>> "WebCam Loophole" which do not appear to relate to any actual changes
>> proposed in the Details section. That's not as critical a problem as
>> changes
>> without rationale, but it's something you may wish to address.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Maciej
>
> On 6/23/10, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>> This change proposal needs to be updated both in order to provide a
>> rationale for each change requested, and to reflect differences from the
>> current draft of the document.
>>
>> As a concrete example, the proposal provides no rationale for removing
>> the paragraph-section-heading "loophole" save for a pointer to a bug
>> report, and the resolution of that bug report indicates that that
>> condition was removed.  Looking at the current text, this condition is
>> indeed no longer present:
>>
>> http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#guidance-for-conformance-checkers
>>
>> Other specific examples: There is rationale given for allowing
>> role="presentation", aria-label or aria-labeledby as exemptions for alt.
>>
>> - Sam Ruby
>>
>> On 02/11/2010 03:03 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>> (+public-html)
>>>
>>> Hi Laura,
>>>
>>> I've recorded this as an additional Change Proposal for ISSUE-31:
>>> http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/issue-status.html#ISSUE-031
>>>
>>> (I've suggested previously that you and Ian should work together to
>>> identify any changes here that are uncontroversial, so they can be
>>> directly applied to the HTML5 draft; I hope the two of you find some
>>> time to make progress on that.)
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Maciej
>>>
>>> On Jan 28, 2010, at 2:18 AM, Laura Carlson wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello Everyone,
>>>>
>>>> I have drafted a Change Proposal for HTML ISSUE-31.
>>>>
>>>> Summary:
>>>> The current guidance for conformance checkers for Section 4.8.2.1 the
>>>> img element is unclear and does not implement WAI CG's advice on the
>>>> validation of short text alternatives. This change proposal replaces
>>>> the current guidance with clear guidance that lists all required short
>>>> text alternative options that exist to be considered valid. It enables
>>>> automatic validators to programmatically detect the presence or
>>>> absence of text alternatives.
>>>>
>>>> Full proposal is at:
>>>> http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20090126
>>>>
>>>> Ideas for improvement are most welcome.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Laura

--
Laura L. Carlson
Received on Wednesday, 7 July 2010 14:50:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:42:13 GMT