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

Re: FIGCAPTION, @alt, and @labelledby: 3 issues [FWD on behalf of LHS]

From: Gregory J. Rosmaita <oedipus@hicom.net>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 21:16:49 +0100
To: public-html-a11y@w3.org
Message-Id: <20100713201413.M21671@hicom.net>
apologies to leif for not catching this earlier -- the following is a
post which LHS attempted to post to the public-html-a11y emailing list
but which was rejected (and which isn't archived in the list archive)

---------- Forwarded Message -----------
Ämne: Re: FIGCAPTION, @alt, and @labelledby: 3 issues
Från: "LHS" <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Datum: 09.07.2010 14.11

A problem with the Consensus document is that it only focuses on some sort
of simplistic prototype usage of <figure>.

It is natural to be wanting to use <figure> like that. But it is not a
typical example of the figure 'concept'.

E.g. the Consensus doc does not talk about the very likely issue that the
figure has both a caption, an img AND some additional text.

One does not need to have changed one's mind about the simplistic
prototype in order to say what Gregory said.

Another thing: why did the  Consensus doc not talk about <details>? Can
the caption of the details element in a simplified prototype example
replace the @alt?

I assume that it can't. Because the 'body' of <details> is also supposed
to be meaningful no its own.

However, that is also the case for the body of <figure>s, in more typical
examples than the one in the Consensus doc.

I think the Consensus document lacks a requirement: role="img".

<figure role="img">
  <captionElement>
    Description
  </captionElement>
  <img alt="" src="pict"/>
</figure>

Gregory's <figure> example on the other hand, should not have role="img".

Leif

Steven Faulkner on 2010.07.09 10.56:

>Hi Gregory,
>>ISSUE 1: i have a major objection to equating FIGCAPTION with @alt or
aria-labelledby

>In the 'WAI CG Consensus Resolutions on Text alternatives in HTML 5'
document [1] it was agreed
  ...
>   - the <img> is located within a <figure> that has a non-empty  
<figcaption>

>Is what laura has proposed substantially different to the consensus doc or
>have you changed your views on it?

[1] http://www.w3.org/2009/06/Text-Alternatives-in-HTML5.html

regards
steve

On 8 July 2010 15:27, Gregory J. Rosmaita 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 image nor 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
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Laura L. Carlson
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Laura L. Carlson
> ------- End of Original Message -------
>

-- 
with regards

Steve Faulkner
Technical Director - TPG Europe
Director - Web Accessibility Tools Consortium

www.paciellogroup.com | www.wat-c.org
Web Accessibility Toolbar -
http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html
------- End of Forwarded Message -------
Received on Tuesday, 13 July 2010 20:17:17 GMT

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