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: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 03:48:35 +0100
Message-ID: <55687cf80908171948v57fae319gb9f0e89a049a433c@mail.gmail.com>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>
hi maciej,

>For the combination of Safari+VoiceOver, the actual AT (VoiceOver) has no
direct access to the DOM, and we >kind of like it that way. I think it would
be better to specify things without overconstraining how the browser and >AT
talk to each other to fix up broken content.

so are all the html elements that voiceover provides interaction with mapped
to the apple accessibility API?

regards
Stevef

2009/8/18 Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>

>
> On Aug 17, 2009, at 8:39 AM, Steven Faulkner wrote:
>
> hi benjamin,
>
> understand where your coming from,
>
> the AT could just as well support a mode where all images are available
> including those with role="presentation"
> this could be achieved by accessing the HTML DOM rather than the
> accessibility API's, AT's already do this for h1-h6 and other elements that
> do not have useful mappings to properties in accessibility API's
>
>
> For the combination of Safari+VoiceOver, the actual AT (VoiceOver) has no
> direct access to the DOM, and we kind of like it that way. I think it would
> be better to specify things without overconstraining how the browser and AT
> talk to each other to fix up broken content.
>
> Regards,
> Maciej
>
>
>
>
> regards
> steve
>
> 2009/8/17 Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>
>
>> On 17/08/2009 11:38, Steven Faulkner wrote:
>>
>>> hi benjamin,
>>> <p>As you can see from the chart below, sales increased in 2008:</p>
>>> <img alt="" src="chart.png">
>>>
>>> from my understaning this does not conform to WCAG 2.0.
>>>
>>
>> That matches my understanding.
>>
>> But the example wasn't supposed to conform to WCAG 2.0 or even my idea of
>> best practice: it was supposed to be an example of the "variety of authoring
>> practice around 'alt'" that makes simply assuming an "img" with alt="" will
>> never need exposure to AT unsafe.
>>
>> I think it's generally best for AT to ignore such "img" elements by
>> default (when they aren't needed to help generate labels). But I do think a
>> mode where even these "img" elements are exposed has user value, given the
>> alternative is to make users dig through a DOM Inspector or source code.
>>
>> Example use-case: Joe is a blind advanced screen reader user putting
>> together a presentation about his company's performance over the past year.
>> He goes to the corporate wiki and finds references to charts for sales in
>> 2008 and profit/loss margins in 2008, but can't find them when reading
>> through the page. He switches to a mode that exposes even images with alt=""
>> and retrieves the charts based on the document sequence.
>>
>> Like I said originally, this use case is "tendentious". People can take
>> different views about whether it's practical to support.
>>
>> --
>> Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
>>
>
>
>
> --
> 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 Tuesday, 18 August 2009 02:49:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 10 October 2014 16:24:51 UTC