W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > April 2011

RE: [text] starter draft of clarification on alt validation, for discussion

From: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 22:33:59 +0000
To: Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>
CC: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, "Sam Ruby (rubys@intertwingly.net)" <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "Maciej Stachowiak (mjs@apple.com)" <mjs@apple.com>
Message-ID: <E3EACD022300B94D88613639CF4E25F81A254283@TK5EX14MBXC134.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Can you explain to me what you expect to do with this [DRAFT] text when you complete it?    

Is the [DRAFT] text to be sent to public-html@w3.org for discussion by the WG?  

Or, is the [DRAFT] text going to be sent to the WG Chairs?  If you plan to send it to the WG Chairs what actions are you hoping to cause to occur?  Are you going to be formally asking for ISSUE-31 or ISSUE-80 to be re-opened?  

If you want one or more of these ISSUEs re-opened do you plan to provide a change proposal for the changes you want to be made?

/paulc

Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329


-----Original Message-----
From: public-html-a11y-request@w3.org [mailto:public-html-a11y-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Judy Brewer
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2011 11:55 AM
To: HTML Accessibility Task Force
Subject: [text] starter draft of clarification on alt validation, for discussion

DRAFT for discussion purposes only.... partly for approach, party for content...

[DRAFT]

Dear All,

With regard to the HTML Working Group Co-Chairs' decisions, as described in the following email...

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0451.html


...which discussed the following information...

>There is a basic disagreement in the group on the validity requirements 
>for alt.  The result was two issues, six change proposals, and a straw 
>poll for objections:
>
>http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/31
>http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/80
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jul/0050.html
>http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20090126
>http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20100706
>http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20100707
>http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20100510
>http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20100504
>http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/issue-31-80-validation-objection-po
>ll/results


...and which arrived at the following six conclusions...

>Therefore, the HTML Working Group hereby decides that:
>
>    * The presence of aria-labelledby does not make missing alt conforming.
>    * The presence of role=presentation does not make missing alt conforming.
>    * The presence of <meta name=generator> makes missing alt conforming.
>    * Use of private communications does not, in itself, make missing 
> alt conforming.
>    * The presence of title makes missing alt conforming.
>    * The presence of figcaption makes missing alt conforming.


...and which furthermore proposed addressing these through implementation of a combination of the following two Change Proposals...

>The two Change Proposals closest to these results are those identified 
>as Requirement Set 1 and Requirement Set 4:
>
>     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jul/0050.html
>     http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20100707
>
>These Change Proposals agree with each other and with the WG decision 
>on aria-labeldby, role=presentation and figcaption.
>
>On the generator mechanism and the title attribute, Requirement Set 1 
>aligns with the WG decision:
>
>     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jul/0050.html
>
>On the email exception, Requirement Set 4 aligns with the WG decision:
>
>     http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20100707
>
>Thus, overall, the WG adopts the Requirement Set 1 proposal with 
>regards to aria-labelledby, role=presentation, <meta name=generator>, 
>title and figcaption; but Requirement Set 4 with regards to the email 
>exception.


...we note that the following information was not considered. The respondents on the surveys mentioned above had not anticipated that this information would be unknown to the Co-Chairs, and so have described this information in some detail within this mail, and presented test samples to illustrate failures associated with the proposed approaches. These clarifications follow.


On the Co-Chair's decision on aria-labelledby:

>    * The presence of aria-labelledby does not make missing alt conforming.

The purpose of alt is to provide alternative text on images, and to allow a user agent to render text in place of the images when images are turned off.

As an example, applications such as Yahoo! mail render alt text for images when web page content is embedded in a mail message. This allows applications and browsers to only fetch images if a user really needs them, improving download performance; and providing a label to explain to the sighted user what is missing.

aria-labelledby is used to reference a label that is already visible on the page, similar to an image caption. Authors put these captions or labels in order to assist the sighted user in providing context about the user.

Both the label and the alt text serve the same purpose when images are turned off; and both provide a label. It does not seem appropriate  to force the author to provide two labels for the same image, and to have two labels rendered when images are turned of. 
Both will supply a label or "name" for the image in the accessibility API.

Consequently, we request that the Co-Chairs consider allowing aria-labelledby to be used to point to a label as a suitable alternative to alt.


On the Co-Chair's decision on role=presentation:

 > * The presence of role=presentation does not make missing alt conforming.

Alt having a value of "" tells the user and assistive technology that the image is presentational. Yet, with alt="" an assistive technology
(AT) must still filter out the image when it has no intrinsic value other than to be decorative or be used as a spacer.

Unlike alt="", role="presentation" has the added value of removing the image from the accessibility API object tree, effectively filtering out the image and improving assistive technology performance. Furthermore, a role of presentation is to state the intent of the author in a declarative fashion. For these reasons, role="presentation" should be considered a suitable alternative to requiring alt when it adds no meaningful information to an AT.

As background, note that in most cases, browsers map browser content to platform accessibility APIs, and an accessible object with a standard API interface is created for each DOM object in a web page. 
These objects are referenced and communicated with by an AT to process accessibility information about visible objects in the web page.


On the Co-Chair's decision on the presence of title making missing alt conforming:

 > * The presence of title makes missing alt conforming.

Title has a completely different function from alt in HTML.

Title is used to generate a tooltip, and is invisible when images are turned off. Alt does not generate a tooltip, and is visible when images are turned off.

If title is allowed as alternative text over alt it will break applications such as Yahoo! mail; it will also break a commonly-used feature, in less powerful mobile phones, where images are turned off to improve performance.

If title were to be used in place of alt then when images are turned off in the browser, nothing meaningful will be shown in the browser.

Furthermore, having title take precedence over alt will result in tooltips being generated on decorative images and spacers, which would do tremendous harm to the user experience.

It should be noted that title is used as a last resort when other measures cannot be employed to compute the label or "name" of an object in the accessibility API mapping for browsers.

Please note the following demonstrations of failures resulting from the proposed approach:

http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/misc/HTML5/alt-tests/screenshots.html


On the Co-Chair's decision on the presence of figcaption making missing alt conforming:

* The presence of figcaption makes missing alt conform

[clarification pending]


Please let us know if additional clarification is needed, and thank you in advance for your re-consideration.

Regards,

....
Received on Friday, 29 April 2011 22:34:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:42:36 GMT