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: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 14:57:14 -0500
Message-ID: <4F45489A.3090502@intertwingly.net>
To: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
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>
On 02/22/2012 02:06 PM, Laura Carlson wrote:
> 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.

My only point at this time is that that is a different Change Proposal 
than the one than the one that was submitted.   I will add that it does 
seem to me that a crucial part of making this case would be being able 
to demonstrate that the advice in the current draft is problematic.

> 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

There are two parts to that question.  If you can establish that the 
advice is problematic and that the best fix is to replace that text with 
a link, then that would be ideal.  My recommendation would have been to 
do that on a case by case basis, and then use the results to establish a 

As to formal objections, the chairs simply capture and forward such. 
Here is the relevant link to the W3C Process:


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

In my opinion, if you have substantive arguments and rationale 
sufficient to merit serious consideration by the director, you likely 
have a sufficient for reopening the issue.

I'll also note that there is a difference between amount of time and 
amount of effort.  The amount of time is not something I have full 
control over.

> 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.

In the case of disputes, I personally would hope that way the dispute is 
settled is based on the substantive arguments or rationale provided for 
each of the alternatives, and/or the strength of the objections provided.

> Best Regards,
> Laura

- Sam Ruby
Received on Wednesday, 22 February 2012 19:57:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:26 UTC