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

Re: FIGCAPTION, @alt, and @labelledby: 3 issues

From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2010 09:59:07 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTil_w64uH1RIsv269XtgHQmZ1AG7ZWuCIpNxVwlA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Gregory J. Rosmaita" <oedipus@hicom.net>
Cc: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Hi Gregory,

Thank you for your review. It is very much appreciated. Besides those
three alt change proposals [1] [2] [3] that I have drafted, are three
additional alt change proposals:

A. Require alt. Correct Definition to Provide Equality. Replace
Guidance for Conformance Checkers. May 04, 2010. (makes alt and src
attributes equivalent.)
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20100504
In this one I tried to address Vlad Alexander concerns.
http://rebuildingtheweb.com/en/correct-img-element-definition/

B. Require alt Ala HTML4. Replace img Definition and Guidance for
Conformance Checkers. May 10, 2010.
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20100510
In this one I tried to address Jonas and T.V Raman's concerns.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010May/0186.html

C. Back in April I also started a variant of the WAI CG January 26, 2010
proposal. It incorporates an incomplete/missing/noalt attribute, which
WAI CG said they would not oppose. But no one has expressed much
interest in it. I would need help to specify the element itself. If
people want to discuss and collaborate that proposal, it is:

Add an incomplete/missing/noalt attribute. Replace img Guidance for
Conformance Checkers.
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/User:Lcarlson/ImgElement

Can you live with any of these? Any advice on the best way to proceed?

Thanks.

Best Regards,
Laura

[1] Replace img Guidance for Conformance Checkers. January 26, 2010.
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20090126
This one incorporates WAI CG's advice. And has an endorsement from the
accessibility task force.
http://www.w3.org/2009/06/Text-Alternatives-in-HTML5
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010May/0009.html
[2] <img> valid only with <alt> or <figcaption> or aria-labelledby.
July 6, 2010.
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20100706
This one removes role="presentation" & aria-labelled attributes per
Maciej's request.
[3] <img> valid only with <alt> or <figcaption>. July 7, 2010.
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20100707
This one removes role="presentation", aria-labelledby & aria-labelled
attributes per Maciej's request.

On 7/8/10, Gregory J. Rosmaita <oedipus@hicom.net> wrote:
> aloha, laura!
>
> three issues arising from a review of the materials you so expertly
> compiled at:
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Jul/0028.html
>
> ISSUE 1: i have a major objection to equating FIGCAPTION with @alt
> or aria-labelledby -- as a content developer, i would like to be able
> to use FIGCAPTION as a caption for an image or a collection of
> images, in the way that LEGEND functions for FIELDSET
>
> <figure>
> <figcaption>Four Stages of a Butterfly's Life</figcaption>
> <img alt="egg" src="bf1.png" longdesc="bf1.html">
> <img alt="larva" src="bf2.png" longdesc="bf2.html">
> <img alt="pupa" src="bf3.png" longdesc="bf3.html">
> <img alt="adult" src="bf4.png" longdesc="bf4.html">
> </figure>
>
> specifying either @alt or FIGCAPTION be used eliminates this
> possibility -- there has been discussion on this topic (associating
> multiple images with a single caption that describes the group)
> which became bifurcated due to my having initially cross-posted
> the emessage to wai-xtech as well as public-html-a11y:
>
> start:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Jun/0142.html
>
> reply thread 1:
> * http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Jun/0143.html
> * http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Jun/0144.html
>
> reply thread 2:
> * http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/wai-xtech/2010Jun/0010.html
> * http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/wai-xtech/2010Jun/0011.html
> * http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/wai-xtech/2010Jun/0012.html
> * http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/wai-xtech/2010Jun/0013.html
> * http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/wai-xtech/2010Jun/0015.html
> * http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/wai-xtech/2010Jun/0016.html
> * http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/wai-xtech/2010Jun/0019.html
>
> ISSUE 2: i support the use of aria-labelledby as a valid substitute for
> @alt ONLY if @labelledby is introduced into HTML5 as a "naked"
> attribute (that is, without the aria- prefix) -- content providers
> cannot count on ARIA support to provide such a fundamental feature
> as a terse textual descriptor of an imagenor should they -- this is
> a case where native solutions MUST be available to content developers
>
> ISSUE 3: i support use of aria-describedby as a valid substitute for
> LONGDESC if, and ONLY if, @describedby is incorporated into HTML5
> as a "naked" attribute (again, without the aria- prefix) -- content
> providers and users cannot count on ARIA support -- NOR SHOULD THEY --
> if a native HTML5 solution is available...  therefore, naked
> @labelledby and @describedby are the only realistic alternatives to
> use of @alt and LONGDESC
>
> gregory.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> Trouble sharpens the vision. In our moments of distress we can see
> clearly that what is wrong with this world of ours is the fact that
> Misery loves company and seldom gets it.          -- P.G. Wodehouse
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> Gregory J. Rosmaita, oedipus@hicom.net
>        Camera Obscura: http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/
>              Oedipus' Online Complex: http://my.opera.com/oedipus/
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ---------- Original Message -----------
> From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@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>
> Sent: Thu, 8 Jul 2010 06:37:07 -0500
> Subject: Re: Add rationale or exclude role="presentation",
> aria-labelledby &       aria-labelled attributes from alt change proposal?
> Help needed. (was Re:       ISSUE-31 Change Proposal)
>
>> 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
> ------- End of Original Message -------

-- 
Laura L. Carlson
Received on Thursday, 8 July 2010 14:59:36 GMT

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