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: Adam Solomon <adam.solomon2@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 19:21:50 +0000
Message-ID: <CALKv3=hrkGpKun_DkBxh4PrOsw4wHmCUtiVx==wnMdepKtTVHQ@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>
Hi Sailesh,
The technique for satisfying 2.4.1 allows headers to be used as navigation
mechanisms, relying on very weak support from supposed plugins. Though we
could certainly make the argument that it should be dropped, aria labels on
the other hand, if shown to have good support would seemingly be a good
means of fulfilling a success criterion. I don't believe a technique needs
to be part of a spec in order to pass WCAG, especially when show to have
widespread AT support.
Failures are not the place to be promoting standards, in my humble
estimation.
+1 to amend the failure.


On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 7:08 PM, Sailesh Panchang <spanchang02@yahoo.com>wrote:

> Hello All,
> Can anyone explain the technical basis for recognizing aria-labelledby or
> title as  suitable attributes for rendering short text alternative for
> images that are not UIE?
> The accessible name  (and text alternative) computation  logic in ARIA
> specs [1] is meant only for user interface elements.
> And to ensure this and prevent rist of over / mis-interpretation, the ARIA
> specs defined the term 'accessible name'  in the context of the ARIA specs
> [2]. So elements (including plain images) that are not UIE is out of scope
> of ARIA specs.
> Aria-labelledby / aria-label applies to UIE only, not plain images. So
>  the accessible name / text alternative computation  logic in the ARIA
> specs is inapplicable to elements that are not UIE.
> - Aria attributes do not help users who do not use AT but yet need  text
> labels to identify images.
> - When aria-labelledby is used to label an image and the image also has a
> non-empty alt (to ensure code is valid), there is a big ristk that the alt
> is different from aria-labelledby referenced text. This will distort how
> different group of users identifies the image.
> So when one uses ARIA for purposes it is clearly not  intended to be used
> (as per the Intro to ARIA), it is a big big dis-service  to accessibility..
> This impacts accessibility for real users with disabilities who depend on
> text identifiers for images as suggested by
> Ramón Corominas in another response.
> So I suggest
> I. there should be no change to F65  as documented currently.
> ii. there should be no ARIA technique promoting the use of aria-labelledby
> or aria-label on non-UIE elements including images.
>
> Thanks,
> Sailesh Panchang
> Reference:
> [1] Text alternative computation    at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria/roles#textalternativecomputation
> [2] Definition of Accessible name:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria/terms#def_accessible_name
>
>
> --------------------------------------------
> On Mon, 11/25/13, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  Subject: Re: UNS: 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>, "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
>  Date: Monday, November 25, 2013, 5:05 AM
>
>  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
>
>
>
>
>
>  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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  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 19:22:19 UTC

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