W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2012

Re: Request to Reconsider Alt Guidance Location

From: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 08:56:39 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+ri+VnjKaOJb4at0X-Bm5iw=skjU_w6e8+kniHrLBiuareSfA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Cc: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, public-html@w3.org, Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
Hi leif,

"My advice is to drop this CP and instead use the energy to focus on the
remaining IMG related issues we have, including @longdesc."

I am sure the taskforce will consider your advice at the earliest
possible opportunity.

>As result, there will be nil -
> zero - normative requirements -

no there will be the machine checkable requirements
presence or lack of the alt attribute.


On 26 February 2012 08:13, Leif Halvard Silli
<xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> wrote:
> Steve Faulkner, Sun, 26 Feb 2012 09:44:14 +0000:
>>> Not sure what the TF thought they were voting for, but this implies to
>>> me there may be new normative requirements.
>> none of the statements you have cited , from my reading, imply that
>> new normative requirements are to be minted
> No new normative requirements. But also no old normative requirements,
> as far as I can see. [But see below.] As result, there will be nil -
> zero - normative requirements - apart from WCAG [which already
> applies]: No normative alt authoring requirements in HTML5 proper, none
> in the alt techniques document - and none anywhere else.
> We have a focus on whether conformance checkers should be allowed to
> drop conformance checking of the @alt usage when the META Generator
> element occurs in the document. But we won't have @alt text validation
> if there is not going to be any normative authoring requirements.
> See below.
>> Any suggestions you have on how to modify the CP text
>> to make that clearer would be appreciated.
> My advice is to drop this CP and instead use the energy to focus on the
> remaining IMG related issues we have, including @longdesc.
> But if you insist on continuing with it, then update the CP with the
> following info:
> * Explain the precise fate of the @ALT techniques document:
>  - Its [new] title
>  - A list of the formats it will cover [Word, ODF, SVG, HTML, etc]
>  - Who is to be responsible for it - which WG
>  - Whether it is to be considered one of the many WCAG _techniques_.
>    That is to say: Will it be a single technique document. Or will
>    the document's many sections become independent technique documents.
>  - How it differs or not differs from other WCAG technique documents
>    and whether it will replace any existing WCAG technique documents
>    and whether it will be authored in a way that differs from other
>    WCAG technique documents
>  - if @longdesc gets included in HTML5, will its usage be described
>    in this document?
>  - other relevant things
> * Explain consequences for - and relationship to - the HTML5 spec
>  - The [possible] consequences for HTML5's section on
>    'Guidance for conformance checkers' [1]
>  - whether you'll reuse *anything* of what your want to delete
>    from HTML5 or whether you will start from scratch
>  - how will you [not] be bound by the HTMLwg's [old] @alt
>    related decisions
>  - whether this CP will put to rest the current IMG related
>    issues, such as the Generator exception and the @title usage issue.
>  This may be seen as an extension to previous point:
> * Describe the consequences for conformance checking of @alt.
>  - will there be any @alt checking in HTML5-conformances checkers
>    or will such things be moved to a specialized checker.
>    If there will be any kind of HTML5-conformance @alt checking, then:
>  - what kind of checks HTML5-conformance checkers be required/asked
>    to perform? E.g. will it be exactly like in HTMl4?  Or will
>    there be no requirement to check, but instead an encouragement
>    to check - some things?
>  - on which basis HTML5-conformance checkers will perform such
>    checking - where are the requirement to be fulfilled described.
>  - Currently, some @alt mistakes constitute Errors. It seems like
>    this [possible] new approach could only allow trigger Warnings.
>    Please explain.
> PS: I also encourage you to have much shorter and more precise Summary.
> Currently, I had to read as far as to the Details section, in order to
> start to get an overview of what it suggests.
> [1]
> http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/the-img-element#guidance-for-conformance-checkers
> --
> Leif H Silli

with regards

Steve Faulkner
Technical Director - TPG

www.paciellogroup.com | www.HTML5accessibility.com |
HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives -
Web Accessibility Toolbar - www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html
Received on Sunday, 26 February 2012 16:57:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:20 UTC