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: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 12:53:07 -0500
Message-ID: <BLU0-SMTP70B530FB74D06D9D0079B9FEED0@phx.gbl>
To: "'Janina Sajka'" <janina@rednote.net>
CC: "'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>, <kirsten@can-adapt.com>
Hi Janina

Although I have a personal opinion on this, I actually want to be as objective as possible in doing this action item on behalf of WCAG. I want consensus. 

The technique that was proposed is here (note the test procedure at the bottom which now allows the other attributes besides alt.) http://tinyurl.com/ksntdbo 

What I am getting from this discussion is that those who are in favour of the change to F65:
- Want developers to understand the clear distinction between an HTML5 validation error and a WCAG failure F65 (which might change to allow aria-label, labelledby, and title)
- Feel that it is more important that the API gets the right accName regardless of the mechnaism, than the "perception" by some developers that there is a conflict between the standards
- That the 2009 document link you sent is not a task force document, but does represent the opinions of extensive discussion by stakeholders at the time

So if I understand correctly, there is no official HTML5 TF position on this, given that the statement you sent predates the task force.  Judging from the responses on list there are a variety of opinions, and the fault lines are not partisan (between industry and the disability community) but rather 

Do you think I've captured this right? This gives me a lot of hope that we can find consensus.

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


-----Original Message-----
From: 'Janina Sajka' [mailto:janina@rednote.net] 
Sent: November 24, 2013 8:59 PM
To: David MacDonald
Cc: 'Steve Faulkner'; 'HTML Accessibility Task Force'; 'WCAG WG'; kirsten@can-adapt.com
Subject: Re: UNS: RE: UNS: WCAG considering amending F65 to NOT fail missing ALT text if title or aria-label is present

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 17:53:41 UTC

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