W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > February 2012

Re: STILL Open--48-Hour Consensus Call: Request to reconsider Alt Techniques Location

From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 13:06:56 -0600
Message-ID: <CAOavpvcBcHinFBGaiwFkSCAz_sBHOJnwgPJOfygL+v2Ts7oyyw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>
Hi Sam and all,

>> This might be the elephant in the room that everyone is dancing around.
>
> Without debating the merit of that point, I will state that that's an
> entirely different point.

Yes it certainly is.

>  Unless you also make the case that having
> information relevant to authors that make use of elements such as <img>
> and attributes such as alt="" in the same place as the definition of
> those elements is counter productive,

Do you mean a case that includes rationale such as:

* When information in a W3C HTML5 document that is relevant to authors
conflicts with W3C WCAG, it is counter productive to those authors.

* That having a contextual link within the body of the HTML5 spec that
leads to accurate information and  will  be  maintained by the group
that is widely regarded as the international standard group for Web
accessibility is more valuable than having inaccurate, conflicting
information in the HTML5 spec that may or may not be maintained by who
knows who.

Would this type of information suffice to reopen the issue or maybe it
would be better to simply include it with Janina's and Steve's Formal
Objections?
http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/formal-objection-status.html#LC-5
http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/formal-objection-status.html#ISSUE-031b

By the way, two of the bugs cited in Steve's Change Proposal are mine.

CAPTCHA
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9216
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9169

Webcam
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9215
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9174

I haven't and won't have the time to pursue having them be corrected
in the HTML5 spec through its lengthy Change Proposal process (i.e. we
have been working on longdesc since 2007 and that issue is still
unresolved.). So I expect that the conflicts between Steve's spec and
Ian's spec will remain.

The HTML Working Group should not be setting normative advice for alt
values. That is WCAG's domain, especially when that advice is in
opposition to WCAG's advice.

Providing the mechanism(s) for a text alternative is an inalienable
HTML WG concern. Whereas providing guidance on values for alternative
text is an inalienable WAI concern.

Best Regards,
Laura

-- 
Laura L. Carlson
Received on Wednesday, 22 February 2012 19:07:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:42:53 GMT