Re: About SC 1.1.1 in the Migration Map

>
> My understanding of the rational for merging 1.4.5 into 1.1.1, is that
> 1.1.1 contains a few instances that dictate what the text alternative must
> be (e.g., null alt, alt==name) but not a complete list.  Having the alt
> attribute value be the words from an image of text is something that could
> have been explicitly included in 1.1.1.


Yep: 1.4.5 Images of Text has exceptions that allow for images of text,
which then (because of 2.5.3 Label in Name) need the accessible name from
the alt text to match the visually presented text. The core purpose of
1.4.5 and 2.5.3, I agree doesn't belong merged in with 1.1.1 and should
stay in the other groups:

   - Text rendering customizability: SC 1.4.4 Resize text, SC 1.4.5 Images
   of Text, SC 1.4.9 Images of Text (No Exception), SC 1.4.8 Visual
   Presentation, SC 1.4.12 Text Spacing
   <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aCRXrtmnSSTso-6S_IO9GQ3AKTB4FYt9k92eT_1PWX4/edit#heading=h.fjszln5otgkv>
   - SC 2.5.3 Label in Name
   <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aCRXrtmnSSTso-6S_IO9GQ3AKTB4FYt9k92eT_1PWX4/edit#heading=h.4s1abswqhsz3>
(on
   its own)

I think moving the bit about form labels from 1.1.1 to the label group (SC
2.4.6 Headings and Labels, SC 3.3.2 Labels or Instructions, SC 3.3.5 Help
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aCRXrtmnSSTso-6S_IO9GQ3AKTB4FYt9k92eT_1PWX4/edit#heading=h.lze929w6yk2c>)
definitely makes sense!

Thanks,

Shawn

On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 8:55 AM Bruce Bailey <Bailey@access-board.gov>
wrote:

> I agree with Detlev and Makoto about separating SC 2.5.3 from 1.1.1.
>
> My understanding of the rational for merging 1.4.5 into 1.1.1, is that
> 1.1.1 contains a few instances that dictate what the text alternative must
> be (e.g., null alt, alt==name) but not a complete list.  Having the alt
> attribute value be the words from an image of text is something that could
> have been explicitly included in 1.1.1.
>
> This gets at what I was trying to say on the call yesterday, that 1.1.1
> divides its use cases into "textual equivalent" and "descriptive
> identification".  I think the Silver version of 1.1.1 might group null alt,
> alt==name, and alt==words-from-an-image-of-text all as examples of textual
> equivalents.
>
> --
> Top posted for my convenience.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Detlev Fischer <detlev.fischer@testkreis.de>
> Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2019 1:59 AM
> To: Makoto Ueki <makoto.ueki@gmail.com>
> Cc: Silver Task Force <public-silver@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: About SC 1.1.1 in the Migration Map
>
> I think 2.5.3 Label in Name  covers a very distinct aspect (matching
> visible label to accName) that should be kept separate from 2.4.6 where the
> point is to check whether label /heading texts are appropriate /
> descriptive of content or function - a semantic, not programmatic match. So
> I would recommend *not* to merge these two.
> Detlev
>
> > Am 17.10.2019 um 03:18 schrieb Makoto Ueki <makoto.ueki@gmail.com>:
> >
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> > Jennifer, Cybele and I are working on SC 1.1.1.
> >
> > The migration map merges "SC 1.1.1 Non-text Content" with " SC 1.4.5
> Images of Text" and "SC 2.5.3 Label in Name". I think these 3 SC should be
> separated.
> >
> > Because:
> > - 1.1.1 is about text alternative and machine readability of non-text
> content.
> > - 1.4.5 is about not using image of text. 1.4.5 can be merged with 1.4.9
> rather than 1.1.1.
> > - 2.5.3 is about form label so it should be merged with 2.4.6 and/or
> maybe 1.3.1 rather than 1.1.1.
> >
> > Also
> > - it might be possible to remove things about form label from 1.1.1 as
> it can be merged with 1.3.1, 2.4.6 and 2.5.3.
> >
> > Having things about form controls in 1.1.1 has made 1.1.1 more
> complicated.
> >
> > So our document don't include SC 1.4.5 and 2.5.3 at this moment. We are
> focusing on SC 1.1.1.
> >
> > Any thoughts?
> >
> > - Makoto
>
>