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

Re: Help with text alternative bugs related to HTML5 Change Proposal: "Replace img Guidance for Conformance Checkers"

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 12:16:51 -0800
Cc: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, Steve Faulkner <sfaulkner@paciellogroup.com>, Gez Lemon <gez.lemon@gmail.com>, Matt Morgan-May <mattmay@adobe.com>, "Gregory J. Rosmaita" <oedipus@hicom.net>, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
Message-id: <19D8DEAC-F438-4D38-AE6D-0F5CF5B55502@apple.com>
To: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>

Hi Laura,

On Mar 1, 2010, at 11:44 AM, Laura Carlson wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> Maciej has asked me [1] to provided bugs for the differences between
> Ian's draft and the text in the Change Proposal that I drafted to
> implement WAI  CG’s text alternative consensus document.
> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20090126
>
> Providing bugs for these is probably not required as Issue 31 predates
> the HTML WG decision policy. And bugs were never filed for similar
> accessibility issues. But I think it is good to do it anyway to give
> Ian the complete opportunity to address and fix the problems.

Thanks for doing this. It is not required, but I think it would be  
helpful. I'm willing to help with bug filing.


>
> Current Status and Advice Needed From A11y Task Force Members:
>
> There are some bugs in various stages and some may need to be created.
>
> 1. Steve has a WONTFIX bug for title, so we already have a bug for  
> this item:
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7362
>
> 2. Simon Pieters has a CLOSED (duplicate) bug for <img
> aria-labelledby>, so a bug exists for this item. The duplicate Bug
> 8171 is in the NEEDSINFO state. I provided a general comment (4). Does
> anything more need to be provided for img aria-labelledby?
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6496
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8171
>
> 3. Gez has a WONTFIX bug for the e-mail issue, so we already have a
> bug for this item:
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8646
>
> 4. I think figcaption is okay and probably doesn't need a bug unless
> anyone thinks differently.

If there's consensus on this, may I suggest adjusting the Change  
Proposal to not call for this change? It might make things easier if  
the Change Proposal listed bullets to add and remove, instead of  
having a total replacement for the section.

>
> 5. Do we want a bug for Ian's number 3 "img element is part of the
> only paragraph..."?  Gez recommended we do, as he is not sure how a
> conformance checker would find that, and doesn’t follow the rationale
> that the alt text is presentational and the paragraph provides the
> context for it. Any suggestions for bug text?

A conformance checker could check for this condition. I am not sure  
what the purpose of this exemption is. The only example in the spec is  
one where the image is the sole content of the only paragraph it its  
section.

> 6. Although I personally disagree with it being a valid option, I've
> drafted bug for the generator mechanism for img from document level to
> element level as WAI CG said that they would condone it:
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Bugs/Generator
> Any suggested text or ideas to improve the bug text?

Should the per-element generator indication be an attribute named  
"generator"? It's not totally clear. What is the value supposed to be?

> 7. Although I personally disagree with it being a valid option, I've
> drafted bug for a missing attribute, as WAI CG said that they would
> condone it. Matt’s crowdsourcing idea is intriguing if it could be
> implemented it would be great.  The bug is at:
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Bugs/Missing
> Any suggested text or ideas to improve the bug text?

Perhaps the attribute should be something like "missingalt" or  
"noalt", since it is the alt text that is missing, not the image.

>
> 8. I've drafted bug to enable automatic validators to programmatically
> determine the presence or absence of a set of text alternatives as
> HTML4 did with alt:
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Bugs/ProgrammaticallyDetermineTextAlternatives
> Any suggested text or ideas to improve the bug text?

I don't understand this bug. Are you saying that it's currently not  
possible for validators to programmatically determine the presence or  
absence of text alternatives? It seems possible to me. What am I  
missing? What specific change in your Change Proposal does this relate  
to?

>
> 9. I've drafted bug for role="presentation" on img.
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Bugs/role=%22presentation%22
> Any suggested text or ideas to improve the bug text?

This bug text seems to lack rationale. While rationale is not required  
for bugs, it is helpful.

>
> 10. I've drafted bug for CAPTCHAs
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Bugs/CAPTCHA
> Any suggested text or ideas to improve it?
> I have also filed a bug with Steve (and he agreed) to provide and
> example in his document.
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9169

Seems like this is dependent on the "title" bug, because per the  
current HTML5 draft using a title attribute is an appropriate way to  
provide descriptive text for a CAPTCHA. Since the title bug has been  
rejected, I'm not sure a separate bug is worthwhile (perhaps Ian will  
correct me if I'm wrong).

>
> 11. I've drafted bug for Webcams
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Bugs/Webcam
> Any suggested text or ideas to improve it?
> I have also asked Steve to provide and example in his document.
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9174

For this bug to be useful, I think you should give an example of what  
kind of text is appropriate for a Webcam.

I think the idea of listing it here is that, while you may be able to  
describe how the Webcam was set up, if it is unattended you may not  
know what will actually show up. A Webcam pointing to your fishbowl  
would be easy to describe, one that you have attached to a car or your  
clothing may not, since it could be showing almost anything. I believe  
the idea is that a figure caption or similar would be a more  
appropriate way to give some text, since it is not a true textual  
alternative for the content. At least, that is what I expect Ian would  
say, so you should probably give a specific example if you'd like an  
outcome other than NEEDSINFO.

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Monday, 1 March 2010 20:17:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:42:03 GMT