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: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 13:36:47 +0100
Message-ID: <55687cf80908170536m22760db4x22d485b9520dd04b@mail.gmail.com>
To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>
hi henri,

* "Authoring tools and markup generators must generate conforming documents.
what current authoring tools stop the generation of invalid documents? how
do you see this being enforced in the future?
2009/8/17 Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>

> On Aug 17, 2009, at 00:11, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
> I agree that it should not insert role="presentation" by default. However,
>> since we both agree with Consensus in that <img> without @role defaults to
>> role="img", it could insert role="img".
> What problem would this solve?
> Tools do not need to ask "Do you want to insert an <img>?" They could offer
>> choice between IMG@role=presentation and normal IMG. Tools should not bug
>> users about lack of alternative text unless the <img> has  a
>> non-presentational role ...
> What kind of markup and UI do you envision for the case where in a future
> HTML5-compliant version of Dreamweaver, the user creates a new document
> (File: New), drags an image file to the document from the Finder and saves
> the document?
> We should treat lack of @alt and empty alt="" as semantically identical.
> That's not how existing client software behaves. Previously, it has been
> stated on the list that it takes a long time to upgrade the software.
> The Consensus Documents goes in that direction when it states that it
>> doesn't mater if an <IMG> with role="presentation" has an empty alt="" or no
>> alt at all. But it goes slightly in the opposite direction when it
>> recommends that validators should say that an <IMG> with an empty alt="" but
>> not @role should automatically get a role="presentation".
> My biggest concern with the proposed normative warning is that
> role=presentation wouldn't be the path of least resistance for dismissing
> the warning. Putting a space in the value of alt would be.
> On Aug 17, 2009, at 02:25, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> If you're saying that authoring tools should produce missing (not empty)
>> alt, without any of the alternatives suggested by HTML5 such as @title or
>> <legend>, and that this should be conforming, then I believe you disagree
>> with the current state of the HTML5 spec.
> Yes. I pointed out in my previous email that I disagree with the current
> state of the HTML 5 spec. (I believe Hixie knew this, but for all-round
> productivity reasons I didn't make a big deal about it on this mailing list
> while the alt discussion was otherwise dormant.)
> The reason I disagree with it is that I haven't seen a credible expectation
> of how a Dreamweaver-like product should implement the requirements of HTML5
> as drafted without failing to conform to ATAG 2 as drafted (or vice versa).
> Anyway, I think discussing what should be conforming before coming to
> consensus on desirable authoring tool behavior will rathole this thread.
> Therefore, instead of discussing my conclusions, I'd like to state my
> premises and invite anyone who disagrees with any of my premises to come
> forward. If it turns out that one of my premises is wrong, my conclusion is
> most likely wrong.
> Here are my premises:
>  * "Authoring tools and markup generators must generate conforming
> documents." ("Authoring tools are exempt from the strict requirements of
> using elements only for their specified purpose, but only to the extent that
> authoring tools are not yet able to determine author intent." "In terms of
> conformance checking, an editor is therefore required to output documents
> that conform to the same extent that a conformance checker will verify.")
> (Quoted from HTML 5.)
>  * "After the end of an authoring session, the authoring tool does not
> attempt to repair alternative content for non-text content using text
> content that is equally available to user agents (e.g., the filename is not
> used)." (Quoted from ATAG 2)
>  * Autogenerated alt="image", alt="" and alt=" " violate the ATAG 2
> language quoted in the previous point.
>  * Autogenerated alt="photo" might be spun not to violate it but
> practically isn't materially different from alt="image".
>  * Autogenerated role=presentation doesn't violate the ATAG 2 point
> literally but does in spirit.
>  * An HTML authoring tool should conform to both HTML 5 and ATAG 2.
>  * In a GUI editor, the user should be able to insert and delete images and
> section/figure headers/captions/legends independently of each other, because
> gluing them together would violate long-standing GUI behavior expectations.
>  * Most authors don't respond to prompts in a meaningful way. (Contrast
> with ATAG 2 B.1.3 applicability notes.)
>  * Dreamweaver and BlueGriffon-type products, Microsoft Word and
> OpenOffice.org-type products (when exporting HTML) and Flickr and
> Brightkite-type services are legitimate classes of services and products
> that are within scope for HTML 5 and ATAG 2.
> Does anyone disagree with any of these points?
> On Aug 17, 2009, at 02:45, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> (To be specific, I think the best option in this case that would be
>> conforming to the current draft would be to put a title attribute on the
>> image, giving the best information the authoring tool has available, even if
>> it is a low-value description like "Photo 1 of 15".)
> The "1 of 15" part should be aria-posinset=1 aria-setsize=15. For the
> remaining "Photo" part, see above.
> --
> 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 -
Received on Monday, 17 August 2009 12:37:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:49 UTC