W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2009

Re: feedback requested on WAI CG Consensus Resolutions on Text alternatives in HTML 5 document

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 15:34:03 -0700
Cc: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>
Message-id: <D3FB9E66-310B-4DD0-BF6D-E39EBD8A7E90@apple.com>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>

On Aug 15, 2009, at 3:18 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:

> On Sat, 15 Aug 2009, Steven Faulkner wrote:
>>
>> I don't understand what is confusing about my request, what I asked  
>> for
>> is feedback on the content of the 'Consensus Resolutions on Text
>> alternatives in HTML 5' document.
>>
>> If you can see your way to providing that, it would be helpful.
>
> In order to review any technical proposal, I have to understand the
> problem it is solving. I don't understand the problem that this  
> proposal
> is solving.

 From studying both documents, I believe the material differences  
between Steve's document and the current spec text are:

(1) The Consensus Resolutions document includes ARIA techniques (@aria- 
labeledby and @role="presentation") for labeling an image, the spec  
currently does not.
(2) The Consensus Resolutions document does allow <figure> <legend>  
like the spec, but it does not allow @title or a heading for an image- 
only section to describe an image. The current spec allows this, only  
in the case where the contents of the image are unknown.
(3) The Consensus Resolutions document does not have the "private  
communication" exception.
(4) The Consensus Resolutions document includes @aria-describedby as  
an choice for optional long descriptions.
(5) The spec has much more extensive advice about what should go in  
the alt attribute than the Consensus Resolutions, including common  
particular cases such as images as link content, or CAPTCHAs.
(6) The Consensus Resolutions proposal recommends an explicit  
reference from HTML5 to WCAG 2.0.

Steve & Ian, do you think I have described the differences accurately?  
Steve, could you clarify which of those differences are important, and  
give the motivation? Ian, could you comment on which of these  
differences would imply a worthwhile change to the spec, perhaps after  
Steve explains the motivation?

My personal impression is that the current spec satisfies all of the  
"Principles underlying the advice below", other than the ARIA  
techniques (which are pending integration of ARIA) and the explicit  
reference to WCAG 2.0.

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Saturday, 15 August 2009 22:34:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 10 October 2014 16:24:50 UTC