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: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 00:02:16 -0700
Cc: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>
Message-id: <914D030D-A31F-4507-B572-222AFC4A4DE3@apple.com>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>

On Aug 24, 2009, at 10:24 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:

> On Wed, 19 Aug 2009, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> Ian wrote:
>>> Steven, if you could describe for me the problem that exists in the
>>> HTML5 spec that your proposal solves, I would be more than happy to
>>> address said problem, and would be grateful for your proposal.
>>> Without a description of a problem, however, I do not intend to edit
>>> the spec on this topic.
>> I believe Steven has now given much of the needed explanation.
> I've tried going through the e-mails on this thread again, but I  
> really
> haven't been able to find a description of a problem that we're  
> trying to
> solve here.
> Going through the cases you listed that you didn't list as cases  
> that no
> longer were being advocated as reasons to change the spec:

Thanks for going through these.

>> C) title / sole-image-in-paragraph exceptions not allowed as  
>> exceptions
>> in the case of unknown image contents:
>> Steve explained here that this is because title does not render  
>> like alt
>> with images disabled or in text-only browsers:
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0881.html
>> Henri added that autogenerated title would possibly violate the  
>> spirit
>> of ATAG2:
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0852.html
>> Jan Richards suggested a "missing" marker as a way to flag images  
>> with
>> deliberately omitted alt, so that autogenerated descriptive text  
>> would
>> not be necessary but conformance checkers could continue to flag  
>> errors.
>> Henri agreed this might be a viable way to resolve the seeming  
>> conflict
>> between HTML5 and ATAG2 requirements:
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0980.html
> I don't really understand what problem we're trying to solve here. Why
> would we give authors using WYSIWYG tools a license to not care about
> making their pages accessible? That seems backwards.

I'm not sure I can shed more light on the underlying issue here.

>> E) Requested reference to WCAG:
>> Steve gave some explanation here and drew comparisons to HTML4 and  
>> SVG:
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0885.html
> I would be open to including references to documents that could help
> authors and implementors -- UAAG, ATAG, WCAG, UTR #36, CHARMOD, etc.
> Indeed, we already have a reference to CHARMOD and UNIVCHARDET. If  
> there
> are other documents that would be helpful, I would be happy to link to
> them too. Steven, is this what you had in mind?

Can't speak for Steven, but that sounds like a really good set of  
references to me. I think the references should be somewhat more  
prominent than in HTML4 or SVG, maybe in the introduction instead of  
relegated to an appendix.

Received on Tuesday, 25 August 2009 07:03:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:50 UTC