Re: Is the Alt Attribute Dead? - Article on Updated F65

Hi all,

While I am often very happy to see interesting and provocative articles, 
I would be very happy to see no more ' Is x-a11y authoring technique 
element/attribute/whatever dead?' type articles.

I'm not singling Jonathan out here (I have written similar things myself 
in the past so - mae maxima culpa) but it has to be said that with 
titles like that, it does imply that the author things this *is* the 
case, even if what follows is a well reasoned and nuanced thesis just 
asking the question.

Anyway, I urge caution to us all, especially when we are in delicate 
times of transition and moving towards 'new' ways of doing things.

Thanks

Josh

Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL wrote:
> Jonathan,
>
>
>
> I did not know that you were the author of this article; please accept my
> apologies for that.
>
>
>
> We need to be very careful with our wording, especially WG members. You were
> very clear about accessibility support being needed.
>
>
>
> But I, personally, would be more comfortable with being very clear about
> exactly what kind of non-text content F65 is discussing by using text more
> in line with the failure text, such as using "A primary change is the
> allowance of new methods other than the alt attribute for non-text elements
> for images or on images." (or of type "image")  and/or "Website teams now
> have greater flexibility to provide text alternatives for non-text content
> for images or on images." (or of type "image")
>
>
>
> This will certainly stir up the discussion...:-)
>
>
>
> My language was perhaps too strong; I regret wording it as I did. Forgive
> me?
>
>
>
> * katie *
>
>
>
> Katie Haritos-Shea
> Senior Accessibility SME (WCAG/Section 508/ADA), Standards QA Architect
> JPMC dCE eCAT
>
>
>
> JPMC Digital | Wilmington, DE |<mailto:Katie.Haritos-Shea@Chase.com>
> Katie.Haritos-Shea@Chase.com | Office: 302-282-1439 | Ext: 21439 | Cell:
> 703-371-5545 |<http://www.linkedin.com/in/katieharitosshea/>  LinkedIn
> Profile
>
>
>
> From: Jonathan Avila [mailto:jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 11, 2014 8:26 PM
> To: Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> Cc: Katie.Haritos-Shea@chase.com; David MacDonald; Bruce Bailey; Andrew
> Kirkpatrick; Joshue O Connor
> Subject: RE: Is the Alt Attribute Dead? - Article on Updated F65
>
>
>
> Katie, as you know I am the author of the post.  Sure the title may seem
> provocative - but it wasn't meant to upset people -it was meant to start a
> larger discussion in the community that had not yet begun.
>
>
>
> I don't think I imply in any way that F65 is a failure for anything other
> than img, area, and input type image.  My statement that you have
> frustration over "A primary change is the allowance of new methods other
> than the alt attribute for non-text elements (e.g. images)." And "Website
> teams now have greater flexibility to provide text alternatives for non-text
> content." was intended to harmonize with the language of ARIA 10 "ARIA10:
> Using aria-labelledby to provide a text alternative for non-text content".
> WAI's own technique ARIA10 states "alternatives for non-text content" - so
> I'm not sure why my publicizing this accepted technique is unexpected.
>
>
>
> When I was thinking of different types of non-text content that could
> benefit from alternatives I was thinking of elements that don't support alt
> such as glyphs, character entities, poster images on video elements, SVG,
> etc.  I was thinking of the allowance of title on elements as indicated by
> the ARIA specification and the HTML5 Platform Accessibility mapping guides.
> I feel confident that for F65 and ARIA10 I was very clear that these methods
> had to be accessibility supported.
>
>
>
> If there is any mis-information in my post I'm happy to update it.  Please
> feel free to comment on our blog and share your thoughts.
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> From: Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL [mailto:ryladog@gmail.com
> <mailto:ryladog@gmail.com>  ]
> Sent: Friday, April 11, 2014 6:57 PM
> To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> Cc: ryladog@gmail.com<mailto:ryladog@gmail.com>  ;
> Katie.Haritos-Shea@Chase.com<mailto:Katie.Haritos-Shea@Chase.com>  ; David
> MacDonald; Bruce Bailey; Andrew Kirkpatrick; 'Joshue O Connor'
> Subject: FW: Is the Alt Attribute Dead? - Article on Updated F65
> Importance: High
>
>
>
>
>
> Folks,
>
>
>
> Please see the note I wrote below concerning SSB's article interpreting the
> newly updated F65. I am sure this is just one of many articles, but, this
> was one of my concerns all along. It takes so very little for
> mis-information to get spread around so quickly..
>
>
>
> While this article has generally good information and recommendations, this
> one aspect, not being specific that it only applies to images, in
> communication, is going to cause so much heart-ache by saying."A primary
> change is the allowance of new methods other than the alt attribute for
> non-text elements (e.g. images)." And "Website teams now have greater
> flexibility to provide text alternatives for non-text content."
> Article URL:
> <https://www.ssbbartgroup.com/blog/2014/04/08/is-the-alt-attribute-dead/>
> https://www.ssbbartgroup.com/blog/2014/04/08/is-the-alt-attribute-dead/
>
>
>
> The original email came into the our Accessibility Team office today from
> another employee who gets SSB Bart news blasts...
>
>
>
>
>
> * katie *
>
>
>
> Katie Haritos-Shea
> Senior Accessibility SME (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA)
>
>
>
> Cell: 703-371-5545 |<mailto:ryladog@gmail.com>  ryladog@gmail.com | Oakton,
> VA |<http://www.linkedin.com/in/katieharitosshea/>  LinkedIn Profile |
> Office: 703-371-5545
>
>
>
>
> Sent: Friday, April 11, 2014 6:23 PM
> Sender Removed
> Subject: RE: Is the Alt Attribute Dead? - Please Review
>
>
>
> Sigh...Yeah..No,
>
>
>
> See, I knew this mis-understanding was coming, and I fought this - my
> recommendation was to include alt for images *with* aria-labelledby
> attribute (w/id), aria-label attribute and title - for a limited time period
> (say 3 years), to drive ARIA uptake while providing full backwards
> compatibility. I did have support for that idea, but, not by enough of the
> right folks, so..
>
>
>
> Please NOTE:  This failure is *ONLY* for images. The SSB article says
> "non-text elements (e.g. images)", which is wrong. It is not 'an example of
> one way' or 'such as' on images, it is only allowed for images AND only in
> environments/situations where aria-labelledby(w/id)/aria-label/title are
> proven to be accessibility supported. It is not intended for any other type
> of non-text content.
>
>
>
> This is the updated Failure:
>
> F65: Failure of Success Criterion 1.1.1 due to omitting the alt attribute or
> text alternative on img elements, area elements, and input elements of type
> "image".
> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/F65.html
>
>
>
> * katie *
>
>
>
> Katie Haritos-Shea
>
>
>
> Sender Removed
> Sent: Friday, April 11, 2014 1:49 PM
> To: EC AccessibilityTeam
> Subject: Is the Alt Attribute Dead?
>
>
>
>
>
>    _____
>
> Is the Alt Attribute Dead?
> <https://www.ssbbartgroup.com/blog/2014/04/08/is-the-alt-attribute-dead/>
>
> In March 2014 the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) Working Group
> (WG) published several new ARIA techniques for WCAG 2 and updated several
> failure techniques. A primary change is the allowance of new methods other
> than the alt attribute for non-text elements (e.g. images). This post serves
> to describe the change in position, its roots, and implications for use. A
> New sufficient technique to promote ARIA for elements that don't support alt
> The sufficient technique ARIA10 was created to provide an example [...]
>
> SSB BART Group<https://www.ssbbartgroup.com/blog>   / Tue, 08 Apr 2014
> 14:27:03 GMT
>
> Sent from FeedDemon<http://www.feeddemon.com/>
>
>

Received on Saturday, 12 April 2014 08:52:19 UTC