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: Thu, 8 Jul 2010 06:37:07 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTilFFQ2kykrlmII23elHouiefnlYLVLxLX8KRZwE@mail.gmail.com>
To: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
On 7/8/10, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:

> I believe this satisfies the request for updates. I'll update the
> issue status page.

Okay. Thank you.

Again, it anyone on the accessibility task force can supply text to
justify role="presentation" and aria-labelled, please, please do let
me know.

I would love to add it to the task force endorsed proposal:
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20090126
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010May/0033.html

Kindest Regards,
Laura

> On Jul 7, 2010, at 7:49 AM, Laura Carlson wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>
>


-- 
Laura L. Carlson
Received on Thursday, 8 July 2010 11:37:40 GMT

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