W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2008

Re: One more thought about requiring the alt to add to the pile

From: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 16:16:13 +0100
Message-ID: <55687cf80804200816o52ce798eu9e8b9d933656d5f9@mail.gmail.com>
To: "David Poehlman" <david.poehlman@handsontechnologeyes.com>
Cc: "Henri Sivonen" <hsivonen@iki.fi>, public-html@w3.org, "W3C WAI-XTECH" <wai-xtech@w3.org>, wai-liaison@w3.org

hi david,
> Send me a page and I'll report.

i have JAWS 5.1, 6.0, 6.2, 7.0 7.1, 8.0 and 9.0 intsalled on my machine

So i asked for an example from you ,where this occurs at it dosn't
tally with my findings, though my test have not been exhaustive.

Are you using a version of JAWS other than those listed? If so which one?
If I know which version then i can test it locally and then make the
test page available to you, to see if there is a discrepency, between
our results.

it would also be helpful to know which mode you are using when it
occurs and which verbosity settings.

regards
steve

On 20/04/2008, David Poehlman <david.poehlman@handsontechnologeyes.com> wrote:
> Send me a page and I'll report.
>
>
>  ----- Original Message -----
>  From: "Steven Faulkner" <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
>
> To: "David Poehlman" <david.poehlman@handsontechnologeyes.com>
>  Cc: "Henri Sivonen" <hsivonen@iki.fi>; <public-html@w3.org>; "W3C WAI-XTECH"
>  <wai-xtech@w3.org>; <wai-liaison@w3.org>
>
> Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2008 9:41 AM
>  Subject: Re: One more thought about requiring the alt to add to the pile
>
>
>
>  hi david,
>  >I have not seen jaws ignoring alt="" in fact, it reports some blather as
>  >though there was no alt.
>
>  can you supply some examples of where this occurs and also what
>  version of JAWS you are using.
>
>  regards
>  stevef
>
>
>
>  On 20/04/2008, David Poehlman <david.poehlman@handsontechnologeyes.com>
>  wrote:
>  > I have not seen jaws ignoring alt="" in fact, it reports some blather as
>  > though there was no alt.
>  >
>  > ----- Original Message -----
>  > From: "Steven Faulkner" <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
>  > To: "Henri Sivonen" <hsivonen@iki.fi>
>  > Cc: <public-html@w3.org>; "W3C WAI-XTECH" <wai-xtech@w3.org>;
>  > <wai-liaison@w3.org>
>  > Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2008 5:25 AM
>  > Subject: Re: One more thought about requiring the alt to add to the pile
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > hi henri,
>  >
>  > >  There has now been a decade-long experiment with making alt a syntax
>  > > requirement. I think this experiment shows that doing so has the
>  > > downside
>  > > of
>  > > inducing bogus alt. When validation has downsides, as a validator
>  > > developer,
>  > > I want to work to remove the downsides.
>  >
>  > Where is the empirical data to support your assumptions? All we
>  > currently have on both sides is anecdote and conviction.
>  >
>  > >  A modal non-visual UI may be easier to invent, but in a non-visual UI
>  > > it
>  > > is
>  > > also harder to tell what mode you are trapped in, so I don't think it is
>  > > necessarily OK to introduce more modality even if there already is some.
>  > > It
>  > > appears that VoiceOver tries to avoid modality (apart from the VO key
>  > > lock)
>  > > just like visual Apple user interfaces.
>  >
>  > As far as AT is concerned we are not comparing like with like.
>  > the windows and mac OS systems present different challenges for AT to
>  > overcome.
>  > I do  not understand the reason for presence of modal UIs in windows
>  > AT, but not in voiceover.
>  >
>  > my suggestion was not to add another mode as both window eys and jaws
>  > (for example) have the option available already to announce all
>  > graphics, but currently this setting still ignores <img alt="">,
>  > so what I am suggesting is that the vendors merely change the
>  > functionality for this option so that alt="" is reported.
>  >
>  > regards
>  > stevef
>  > On 20/04/2008, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi> wrote:
>  > > On Apr 18, 2008, at 11:07, Steven Faulkner wrote:
>  > >
>  > >
>  > > >
>  > > > > No. Now you are being so dogmatic about the alt attribute being
>  > > > > there
>  > > > > that you are willing to suggest modal UI to work around it. That's
>  > > > > bad.
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > There is dogma on both sides of the debate, you  appear more dogmatic
>  > > > about the idea of alt as optional, than I am to it being required, I
>  > > > have publically stated that I am as yet unconvinced of the
>  > > > desirability of a required alt. There is obviuosly no doubt in your
>  > > > mind.
>  > > >
>  > >
>  > >  I can be persuaded with empirical data.
>  > >
>  > >  There has now been a decade-long experiment with making alt a syntax
>  > > requirement. I think this experiment shows that doing so has the
>  > > downside
>  > > of
>  > > inducing bogus alt. When validation has downsides, as a validator
>  > > developer,
>  > > I want to work to remove the downsides.
>  > >
>  > >  It may be that there's a greater upside and that a situation that
>  > > polarizes
>  > > results but has a greater upside is better even if it also moves the
>  > > downside further from neutrality. However, absent data about this, I
>  > > think
>  > > it is reasonable to default to removing the downside.
>  > >
>  > >  Also, I think the Image Review feature I have implemented in
>  > > Validator.nu
>  > > works better than merely flagging missing alt as a validation error
>  > > would
>  > > for validator users who want to maximize an accessibility measure. It
>  > > remains to be seen how it affects validator users who don't care about
>  > > an
>  > > accessibility measure and are seeking to maximize a syntactic
>  > > correctness
>  > > measure.
>  > >
>  > >  In general, if you want people to maximize function f(), it is safer to
>  > > tell them to do so than to tell them to maximize a more appealing
>  > > function
>  > > g() and then try to build an artificial correlation between the two.
>  > > Because
>  > > then people are really maximizing g() and if your artificial correlation
>  > > setup isn't working, well, oops. So if your agenda is accessibility, the
>  > > advocacy should be "accessibility, accessibility"--not "validity,
>  > > validity"
>  > > with an added attempt to tie them together.
>  > >
>  > >
>  > > > There already are  "modal UI's" for most aspects of screen readers
>  > > > content presentation, i think it is the nature of  presenting visual
>  > > > UI's non visually or non linear content linearly.
>  > > >
>  > >
>  > >  A modal non-visual UI may be easier to invent, but in a non-visual UI
>  > > it
>  > > is
>  > > also harder to tell what mode you are trapped in, so I don't think it is
>  > > necessarily OK to introduce more modality even if there already is some.
>  > > It
>  > > appears that VoiceOver tries to avoid modality (apart from the VO key
>  > > lock)
>  > > just like visual Apple user interfaces.
>  > >
>  > >  --
>  > >  Henri Sivonen
>  > >  hsivonen@iki.fi
>  > >  http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  >
>  >
>  > --
>  > with regards
>  >
>  > Steve Faulkner
>  > Technical Director - TPG Europe
>  > Director - Web Accessibility Tools Consortium
>  >
>  > www.paciellogroup.com | www.wat-c.org
>  > Web Accessibility Toolbar -
>  > http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>
>
>  --
>  with regards
>
>  Steve Faulkner
>  Technical Director - TPG Europe
>  Director - Web Accessibility Tools Consortium
>
>  www.paciellogroup.com | www.wat-c.org
>  Web Accessibility Toolbar -
>  http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html
>
>
>


-- 
with regards

Steve Faulkner
Technical Director - TPG Europe
Director - Web Accessibility Tools Consortium

www.paciellogroup.com | www.wat-c.org
Web Accessibility Toolbar -
http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html
Received on Sunday, 20 April 2008 15:16:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:16 GMT