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

Re: ISSUE-122 shalott-example: Call for revisions

From: Gregory J. Rosmaita <oedipus@hicom.net>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 15:49:17 +0000
To: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Cc: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, "Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> (janina@rednote.net)" <janina@rednote.net>, "Michael Cooper (cooper@w3.org)" <cooper@w3.org>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Message-Id: <20110217153449.M62658@hicom.net>
Laura Carlson wrote:

> That leaves two proposals for HTML-ISSUE-122. Between Steve's proposal
> [6] and Gregory's proposal [7], I would support Steve's as he
> addresses both of the bugs [8] [9] that Ian raised. Gregory's proposal
> misses half of the issue. Gregory's proposal talks about 
> supplying text alternatives for purely decorative images but 
> does not address providing text alternatives for thematic images.

the reason why the change proposal logged at 


is focused on one aspect of the issue is due to its history -- i was 
tasked with an action item at TPAC 2010 during the HTML WG portion of
the meetings to specifically suggest a change to HTML5 section, entitled "A purely decorative image that doesn't add any 


therefore, my proposal, as requested by the chairs and facilitators,
was specifically to propose replacement text for section --
the WG agreed during the F2F that this specific section should be 
changed, as a first step towards a re-examination of ALL of the 
guidance, advice and requirements contained in the HTML5 draft 
concerning textual equivalents, which i (and others) have argued,
belong properly in the Alt Text Techniques document and in WCAG, to
which my proposed text specifically points...

reference: http://www.w3.org/2010/11/04-html-wg-minutes.html#item12

so, to sum up:

1. the change proposal at:


is intended to provide replacement text for section as per
agreement at TPAC 2010


2. the larger issues addressed by Issue-122 and Issue-31 were to be 
treated separately -- the action i was tasked with was to provide 
specific replacement text for section while leaving open
the issue of ALL of the advice/requirements contained in the 
super-section of HTML5 being migrated to either the Alt Text Tech
document or WCAG, hence the pointed reference in the second paragraph:

"Exceptions to this rule, in cases where CSS cannot be used to display 
an entirely decorative image, are covered by the HTML5: Techniques 
for providing useful text alternatives. [HTML ALT TECHS] Authors are 
also encouraged to consult the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 
2.0 for more detailed information and acceptable techniques. [WCAG 

which builds upon the Rationale included in the change proposal:

"Advice about providing alt text for "purely decorative images, and the
definition thereof, should be contained in the HTML5: Techniques for
providing useful text alternatives and the Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines, version 2.0 (WCAG 2.0). "

Received on Thursday, 17 February 2011 15:50:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:18 UTC