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

Re: UNS: Re: 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: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 07:21:05 +0000
Message-ID: <CA+ri+V=SRhpdmKiB0Zncgms9U0_bed8qfHZ+m4iWMK8gv65eWQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, 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
Hi Janina,

comments inline




--

Regards

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


On 25 November 2013 02:12, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> wrote:

> I'm sorry, but I have to raise an objection here ...
>
> Steven Faulkner writes:
> > --initial twitter feedback from the community is strongly against
> changing
> > > this failure
> > >
>

you quoted   my quote of David from his original email on the subject.

What I wrote was:

> further feedback conforms this:
> https://twitter.com/stevefaulkner/status/404169363403456512




>
> And, what value does this add to the discussion in WCAG and on list
> here?
>

Depends on whether we are interested in the thoughts people other than
those on the list.




>
>
> You mention "the community on Twitter." I guess, as I'm not part of that
> community, I must wonder who else is missing?
>

It is a super-set of those on this list. It is not my community, it's a
community that are interested in accessibility but do not have have the
bandwidth or knowledge of, discussion occurring on public W3C lists.


> Also, I note that many people responding in email here have required
> well over 141 chars to express their views. How did you vully vet these
> concerns in SMS length messages? For instance, can your community
> explain "layering violations?"
>

When did we start looking down on +1 responses? I would suggest there are
some useful insights from a wider set of people than represented here.



>
> Lastly, have we now shifted to determining W3C specifications by  random
> voting.
>

No one has suggested that we make a decision based on random voting, what
input from those interested in accessibility, but not following the
discussion on list, provides is a data point(s) to help inform the
discussion going on here.



>
> Frankly, I'm unclear why you even took this discussion to Twitter. What
> did you expect to gain and how are we to understand the value of any
> results? What good does this do? What value does it add?
>

That depends on how much weight we put on input from outsiders.


>
> Janina
>
>
> >
> > further feedback conforms this:
> >
> > https://twitter.com/stevefaulkner/status/404169363403456512
> >
> > --
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > SteveF
> > HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/>
> >
> >
> > On 22 November 2013 23:27, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
> >
> > > 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 Monday, 25 November 2013 07:22:15 UTC

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