W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > November 2013

Re: UNS: WCAG considering amending F65 to NOT fail missing ALT text if title or aria-label is present

From: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 10:15:21 +0000
Message-ID: <CA+ri+V=O9vm2e-Pg=tKBnFVR_chUs3JESEK-0=y2PvX-ixDm_g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sailesh Panchang <spanchang02@yahoo.com>
Cc: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, WCAG WG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, public-comments-wcag20@w3.org, Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
Hi sailesh,

what are you saying here?

that you disagree with making it OK to use aria-label etc in place of alt
on an image?
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2013Nov/0052.html

if so then we are in aggreement

--

Regards

SteveF
HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/>


On 24 November 2013 03:08, Sailesh Panchang <spanchang02@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Hello Steve,
>
> 1. Some advance the text alternative computation logic in the ARIA specs
> as the chief motivation for attributes other than the alt for images,
> specifically the aria-labelledby and title.
> I find it difficult to accept that viewpoint for  reasons noted  in my
> post:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2013OctDec/0115.html
>
> 2. As one might expect, developers rely on automated validation checkers
> to validate pages  as suggested by techniques G134, H88 to ensure
> compliance with SC 4.1.1 (A).
> While only a subset of validation rules apply for this SC, most developers
> will not be able to or do not have bandwidth to do the fine tuning as
> required for this SC and will simply aim for full validation as the intent
> to the SC suggests that content which is 'created according to the rules
> defined in the formal grammar for that technology' is a good thing to
> ensure interoperability and robust browser/AT support.
> So now if one says 'disregard validation errors for absence of alt
> attribute, confusion will be rife.
> Usefulness of the validation checkers too will be questioned.
> Above all, it is not good for the WG to say'it is fine if one introduces
> certain types of validation issues into the code'.
>
> Thanks and regards,
>
> Sailesh Panchang
>
> --------------------------------------------
> On Sat, 11/23/13, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  Subject: Re: UNS: WCAG considering amending F65 to NOT fail missing ALT
> text  if title or aria-label is present
>  To: "David MacDonald" <david100@sympatico.ca>, "HTML Accessibility Task
> Force" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, "WCAG WG" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>,
> public-comments-wcag20@w3.org, "Gregg Vanderheiden" <gv@trace.wisc.edu>,
> kirsten@can-adapt.com
>  Date: Saturday, November 23, 2013, 3:39 AM
>
>  Hi Janina,
>  Over time and due to experience and understanding, consensus
>  positions change. This document is a useful historical
>  reference, but does not represent the current (lack of)
>  consensus position on the issue.
>
>
>
>  --
>
>  Regards
>
>  SteveF
>  HTML
>  5.1
>
>
>
>
>
>  On 22 November 2013
>  23:54, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
>  wrote:
>
>
>  David:
>
>
>
>  As a point of information, the wider WAI community has
>  already expressed
>
>  a view on this. We did so back in 2009, after almost a year
>  of teleconferences nd
>
>  email discussions by way of presenting a coherent approach
>  to the
>
>  HTML-WG.
>
>
>
>  The document we produced is entitled, "WAI CG Consensus
>  Resolutions on
>
>  Text alternatives in HTML 5," and is available at:
>
>
>
>  http://www.w3.org/2009/06/Text-Alternatives-in-HTML5.html
>
>
>
>  So, while it's always good to revisit old thinking, it
>  should not be
>
>  forgotten that we've already covered this ground, and
>  that we covered it
>
>  quite extensively.
>
>
>
>  Janina
>
>
>
>
>
>  David MacDonald writes:
>
>  > On behalf of the WCAG working group, I have an action
>  item to solicit
>
>  > responses from the wider community regarding a proposed
>  amendment to WCAG
>
>  > failure technique F65 regarding missing ALT. Currently;
>  if an <img> element
>
>  > is missing from an ALT attribute the page fails WCAG SC
>  1.1.1 Level A. Some
>
>  > are proposing that we allow authors to use the
>  aria-label, aria-labelledby,
>
>  > and title attributes INSTEAD of ALT.
>
>  >
>
>  > So under the amended failure technique NONE of the
>  following would fail
>
>  > WCAG:
>
>  >
>
>  > <img src="../images/giraffe.jpg"
>  title="Giraffe grazing on tree branches"/>
>
>  >
>
>  > <img src="../images/giraffe.jpg"
>  aria-label="Giraffe grazing on tree
>
>  > branches"/>
>
>  >
>
>  > <img src="../images/giraffe.jpg"
>  aria-labelledby="123"/>
>
>  > <p id="123"> Giraffe grazing on tree
>  branches</p>
>
>  >
>
>  > As you can imagine there are strong opinions all around
>  on this so I
>
>  > suggested we get a sense of what other groups such as
>  the HTML5 A11y TF and
>
>  > PF think.
>
>  >
>
>  > Those in favour of the change provide the following
>  rational:
>
>  >
>
>  > --These alternatives on the img element work in
>  assistive technology
>
>  > --The aria spec says these attributes should get an
>  accessible NAME in the
>
>  > API
>
>  > http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria/roles#textalternativecomputation
>
>  > --They say it's easy to teach beginner programmers
>  to just always use an
>
>  > aria label on everything, rather than requiring a label
>  on form fields and
>
>  > alt on images
>
>  > --They feel as a failure F65 is very strong if fails a
>  page for missing ALT,
>
>  > especially if other things work, and they would like to
>  soften it to allow
>
>  > other things that work.
>
>  > --html 5 allows a <figure><legend>
>  combination instead of alt, so they feel
>
>  > WCAG will have to change F65 anyway to allow a figure
>  with a legend, and
>
>  > that helps open the door to this discussion
>
>  >
>
>  > Those in favour of the status quo (which fails missing
>  alt text) provide the
>
>  > following rational:
>
>  >
>
>  > --aria-label, labelledby and title, are not really
>  suitable attributes for
>
>  > img alternative text because they implies a label or
>  title, rather than an
>
>  > alternate text, so it is not a semantic equivalent
>
>  > --title is not well supported
>
>  > --some feel that the aria spec is not in any way
>  suggesting these as
>
>  > replacements to ALT.
>
>  > --aria instructs authors to use native html where
>  possible, and they could
>
>  > not come up with viable use cases of omitting alt text
>
>  > --there are hundreds of millions of dollars invested in
>  current evaluation
>
>  > tools, and methodologies, and this would represent a
>  major departure from
>
>  > one of the most basic accessibility convention, that is
>  almost as old as the
>
>  > web and is the "rock star" of accessibility
>
>  > --it could cost a lot of money to change guidance to
>  developers etc..., and
>
>  > muddy the waters on a very efficient current evaluation
>  mechanism
>
>  > --when the figure/legend is supported by AT we can
>  amend F65 but that is a
>
>  > different issue and the semantics of this construct are
>  OK for text
>
>  > alternatives, rather than the label/labelledby/title
>  options
>
>  > --it may cause some confidence problems to WCAG
>  legislation, because it
>
>  > represents a strong loosening to a fundamental Success
>  Criteria, an
>
>  > unnecessary change that doesn't help the cause of
>  accessibility, but just
>
>  > complicates things
>
>  > --ALT is better supported and the text appears when
>  images are turned off.
>
>  > --initial twitter feedback from the community is
>  strongly against changing
>
>  > this failure
>
>  >
>
>  >
>
>  > There are probably other reasons on both sides which we
>  hope to hear ... but
>
>  > these should start it off. Please give your opinions
>  and reasons.
>
>  >
>
>  > Current technique here:
>
>  > http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-TECHS/F65.html
>
>  > Proposed failure here (see test procedure)
>
>  >
>
>  >
>
>  >
>
>  > Cheers,
>
>  > David MacDonald
>
>  >
>
>  > CanAdapt Solutions Inc.
>
>  > Tel:  613.235.4902
>
>  > http://ca.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100
>
>  > www.Can-Adapt.com
>
>  >
>
>  >   Adapting the web to all users
>
>  >             Including those with
>  disabilities
>
>  >
>
>  >
>
>
>
>  --
>
>
>
>  Janina Sajka,   Phone:  +1.443.300.2200
>
>                          sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net
>
>                  Email:  janina@rednote.net
>
>
>
>  Linux Foundation Fellow
>
>  Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup:       http://a11y.org
>
>
>
>  The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility
>  Initiative (WAI)
>
>  Chair,  Protocols & Formats     http://www.w3.org/wai/pf
>
>          Indie UI                        http://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Sunday, 24 November 2013 10:16:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:36 UTC