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: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 04:18:36 -0700
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>
Message-id: <D6F0E25F-57A8-4BB2-A0BB-AB6B05C34E96@apple.com>
To: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>

On Aug 16, 2009, at 2:37 AM, Steven Faulkner wrote:

> hi maciej, thanls for providing this fedback and analysis.
> notes
> The consensus document is not my document it is feedback/ 
> recomendations from the following W3C WAI Working Groups on the HTML  
> 5 spec: Authoring Tools Working Group (AUWG), Protocols & Formats  
> Working Group (PFWG), User Agent Working Group (UAWG), and Web  
> Content (WCAG WG).
>
> in regards to:
> (3) The Consensus Resolutions document does not have the "private  
> communication" exception.
> and
>
> (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.
>
> the consensus document is not meant to be a replacement for current  
> spec text,  it contains recommendations for modifications and  
> additions based on a WAI review.

I guess it wasn't totally clear to me which aspects of the document  
were recommendations, or at least, what concrete changes are  
requested. I didn't think it was meant to be literal spec text, since  
in some cases it says what the HTML5 spec should recommend.

Based on what you said above, I'm going to assume my points (3) and  
(5) were incidental and not meant to suggest spec changes. That leaves  
the following differences:

(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.
(4) The Consensus Resolutions document includes @aria-describedby as  
an choice for optional long descriptions.
(6) The Consensus Resolutions proposal recommends an explicit  
reference from HTML5 to WCAG 2.0.
(7) The Consensus Resolutions document suggests that alt="" (empty  
alt) without role="presentation" on the same element should trigger a  
non-fatal validator warning that recommends adding role="presentation".

I would appreciate if you could point out any important differences I  
missed. I'd also like to determine what changes if any are suggested  
to the spec for each of these, and what WAI's justifications are. I am  
optimistic, because I believe the current spec is pretty close to what  
is desired, so we may be able to find consensus on text equivalents  
for images.

I will add that justifications for (1) and (4) are pretty clear to me.  
There is wide agreement to integrate ARIA with HTML5, once ARIA is  
integrated, ARIA techniques should clearly be allowed. So what I'd  
like to understand whether (2), (6) and (7) are meant to be change  
requests, and if so, their justification and relative importance.

I'm trying to break things down like this to make sure we are all  
communicating clearly.

> I have taken it upon myself to work an alternative version of the  
> spec that impacts on both of these parts, namely to move many of the  
> examples to a dedicated document dealing with text alternatives best  
> practice [1] , but this is not as a result of a recommendation to do  
> so contained within the WAI document.
>
> I will respond further soonish

Looking forward to it!

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Sunday, 16 August 2009 11:19:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 1 October 2014 21:47:36 UTC