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 15:33:34 -0600
Message-ID: <CAOavpvexB4C5-K36X4=aRgqJ9Hr+L-VDgbooLfgNqwA4318k2Q@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,

> 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.

Two sets of advice that recommend two drastically different alt values
is problematic for authors. One conforms to WCAG the other does not.
That confusing. How could it not result in authoring inconsistent alt
values?

> There are two parts to that question.  If you can establish that the advice
> is problematic

Is it not self-evident that giving conflicting advice is bad? How will
it not lead to confusion?

> I'll also note that there is a difference between amount of time and amount
> of effort.

This is true. Task force members have worked very hard providing
change proposals, giving much time as well as effort. We have tried to
work within the HTML Decision process system. I know I and many others
have given our utmost and tried to do our very best.

> The amount of time is not something I have full control over.

I don't either.

Best Regards,
Laura
-- 
Laura L. Carlson

On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> 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 pattern.
>
> As to formal objections, the chairs simply capture and forward such. Here is
> the relevant link to the W3C Process:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies#WGArchiveMinorityViews
>
>
>> 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.
>
>
> 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

-- 
Laura L. Carlson
Received on Wednesday, 22 February 2012 21:34:03 GMT

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