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

Hi Jon, first up, I have no problem with your post or post title.

secondly, it prompted me to clarify why there is now divergent requirements
on alt between wcag and HTML:
short note on alt in HTML
http://blog.paciellogroup.com/2014/04/short-note-alt/

--

Regards

SteveF
HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/>


On 12 April 2014 01:25, Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com> wrote:

> 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]
> *Sent:* Friday, April 11, 2014 6:57 PM
> *To:* w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> *Cc:* ryladog@gmail.com; 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/
>
>
>
> 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 <703-371-5545> **|* *ryladog@gmail.com*<ryladog@gmail.com>
> *|* *Oakton, VA **|* *LinkedIn Profile*<http://www.linkedin.com/in/katieharitosshea/>
> *|* *Office: 703-371-5545 <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/>
>