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

Re: HTML Action Item 54 - ...draft text for HTML 5 spec to require producers/authors to include @alt on img elements.

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 10:17:34 -0700
Cc: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>, wai-liaison@w3.org, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>
Message-Id: <48A7B87E-984D-45DF-9020-0055F48106A7@apple.com>
To: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>


On May 12, 2008, at 8:59 AM, Steven Faulkner wrote:

>> Defining any content produced by the use case to be non-conforming is
> not >handling the use case, at least for purposes of document
> conformance.
>
> That is your opinion, others including myself think otherwise.

It is not a matter of opinion. Making a use-case non-conforming is by  
definition not handling it for purposes of document conformance. It  
may be a conscious choice to reject a use case, but it is not support.


> re your example:
> "<p id="info">Complete explanation of a chart with full details.</p>
> <img src="chart.png" alt="Explanation of chart." aria- 
> describedby="info">"
>
> The user may also access it like this:
>
> "Complete explanation of a chart with full details". if they skim read
>
> or
>
> "Explanation of chart". or this if they navigate by graphics or they
> are using a magnifier/reader which will read content under the mouse
> cursor.
>
> Problem with your argument is you do not take into account the
> different mechanisms used by people with disabilities to interact with
> content. It is not purely linear or a matter of whole blocks of
> content being voiced.
>
> You playing around with voiceover and then basing arguments upon your
> observations, is not a sound basis for much at all.

 From my experience it does lead to redundant content using a screen  
reader to read the whole document or read by paragraph. Are you  
telling me no screen reader user does this? Or does degrading the  
experience of doing this not matter for some reason? Have you  
personally tried either of the alternatives in any form of assistive  
technology, or watched anyone do so? I understand that trying it  
myself is not much, but it's more than nothing. I would like to hear  
what testing you have done on this issue, that you are so glibly  
dismissive of mine.

>> That sounds like an appeal to authority, not a justification. Even  
>> the best
>> exerts make mistakes, or fail to think through certain edge cases. Or
>> sometimes, they can reach correct conclusions that non-experts find
>> surprising, in which case an explanation can be of great benefit.
>
>
>
> Not appeal to authority, nor a justification, but a recognition that a
> group of people have spent a lot of time working on the guidelines,to
> provide benefits for people with disabilities. Their priority has been
> people with disabilities, not browser vendors or authoring tool
> vendors or authors. So I  trust their advice about what makes an
> appropriate text alternative over your intuitive fumblings.

So wait. Do you actually understand the logic behind WCAG 2.0 on this  
or other points? If so, then refusing the explain the logic seems like  
a needless lack of collegiality. If not, does that mean you have just  
taken WCAG 2.0 on faith and applied it without understanding the  
underlying logic? If that is the case, then I do not understand how  
your proposal can be meaningfully discussed.

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Monday, 12 May 2008 17:18:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:55 UTC