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

Re: UNS: 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: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 10:05:17 +0000
Message-ID: <CA+ri+Vm7UNxk9LT0BBsPw2E=uVK5fM+wpFRaUOAp-6+LuXvAQQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, WCAG WG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, kirsten@can-adapt.com
This http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20100504 is a
useful detailed account of the various arguments for keeping a strict
requirement on alt in HTML (for accessibility reasons).

--

Regards

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


On 25 November 2013 08:31, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Janina,
>
> I accept there's a technicality here regarding HTML
>> validation that makes no judgement whatsoever about accessibility.
>
>
> Accessibility advocates argued for 5+ years in the html wg against the
> loosening of the requirements on alt in HTML. It was all about
> accessibility.
>
> --
>
> Regards
>
> SteveF
> HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/>
>
>
> On 25 November 2013 01:58, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> wrote:
>
>> I don't believe your analysis is correct. These are not the opposing
>> viewpoints. They address separate concerns. While I don't claim to
>> fully understand what the HTML-WG means by "layering violations," or why
>> those
>> are a concern, I accept there's a technicality here regarding HTML
>> validation that makes no judgement whatsoever about accessibility.
>>
>> Perhaps you and others may have been perplexed by James Craig response
>> to your first posting on this topic this past Friday? His was the first
>> response to your post, and basically says the same as I understand what
>> he wrote:
>>
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2013Nov/0053.html
>>
>> PS: The 2009 WAI Guidance document was not a product of the HTML-A11Y
>> Task Force as that TF had not yet been created. The document came from a
>> special TF that was formed to address the specific question of what HTML
>> should do regarding alternative text, short and long. The TF in which
>> both you and I participate today was formed later in 2009. The TF that
>> created the document cited disbanded once the document was accepted by
>> the several WAI working groups and published.
>>
>> Janina
>>
>> David MacDonald writes:
>> > I have no desire to open an old debate.  But unless I’ve missed
>> something HTML5 A11y TF 2009 resolution and a 2013 A11Y bug response seem
>> to be in conflict....
>> >
>> >  http://www.w3.org/2009/06/Text-Alternatives-in-HTML5.html
>> >
>> > allows aria-labelledby as secondary...
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > A bug against HTML5 seems to have the A11Y TF taking the opposite
>> position. Unless I’ve missed something.
>> >
>> >  <https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6496>
>> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6496
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I am willing to go back to WCAG with either response ... I just want to
>> know where the task force is ... if it is not important to the TF, I can go
>> back with that also.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > If possible I would like WCAG and HTML5 to be consistent with each
>> other.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> >
>> > David MacDonald
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > CanAdapt Solutions Inc.
>> >
>> > Tel:  613.235.4902
>> >
>> >  <http://ca.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
>> http://ca.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100
>> >
>> >  <http://www.can-adapt.com/> www.Can-Adapt.com
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >   Adapting the web to all users
>> >
>> >             Including those with disabilities
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > This e-mail originates from CanAdapt Solutions Inc. Any distribution,
>> use or copying of this e-mail or the information it contains by other than
>> the intended recipient(s) is unauthorized. If you are not the intended
>> recipient, please notify me at the telephone number shown above or by
>> return e-mail and delete this communication and any copy immediately. Thank
>> you.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Le présent courriel a été expédié par CanAdapt Solutions Inc. Toute
>> distribution, utilisation ou reproduction du courriel ou des renseignements
>> qui s'y trouvent par une personne autre que son destinataire prévu est
>> interdite. Si vous avez reçu le message par erreur, veuillez m'en aviser
>> par téléphone (au numéro précité) ou par courriel, puis supprimer sans
>> délai la version originale de la communication ainsi que toutes ses copies.
>> Je vous remercie de votre collaboration.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > From: Sailesh Panchang [mailto:spanchang02@yahoo.com]
>> > Sent: November 24, 2013 10:23 AM
>> > To: Steve Faulkner
>> > Cc: HTML Accessibility Task Force; WCAG WG;
>> public-comments-wcag20@w3.org; Gregg Vanderheiden; Janina Sajka
>> > Subject: Re: UNS: WCAG considering amending F65 to NOT fail missing ALT
>> text if title or aria-label is present
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Hello Steve, I'm saying I disagree with the use of ARIA  for plain
>>  images that are not user Interface elementsHello Steve, I'm saying I
>> disagree with the use of ARIA  for plain  images that are not user
>> Interface elements
>> >
>> > Sailesh---
>> >
>> > Sent from my iPad ... Please pardon "dictapos" and typos ... <grin>
>> >
>> >
>> > On Nov 24, 2013, at 5:15 AM, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > 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 <tel:%2B1.443.300.2200>
>> >
>> >                          sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net <mailto:
>> sip%3Ajanina@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/
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> --
>>
>> 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 10:06:30 UTC

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