W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > wai-xtech@w3.org > May 2008

Re: HTML Action Item 54 - ...draft text for HTML 5 spec to require producers/authors to include @alt on img elements.

From: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 20:27:24 +0100
Message-ID: <55687cf80805121227l12ff5f06g67588956693f59bf@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, "W3C WAI-XTECH" <wai-xtech@w3.org>, wai-liaison@w3.org, "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "Chris Wilson" <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>

dear maciej,

>It is not a matter of opinion. Making a use-case non-conforming is by
definition not handling it for purposes of document conformance. It
may be a >conscious choice to reject a use case, but it is not
support.

you assume without justification, that it is desirable or right to
accommodate use cases that  result in important data and/or data
relationships not being provided. i don't subscribe to this.

>explain the logic seems like a
> needless lack of collegiality.

through examples of the way different users access the content and
different  AT provide access to content, i have provided examples of
why this advice is appropriate. the "underlying logic" of the advice.

you don't appear to want to accept those as relevant or important, you
only want to concentrate on your  "testing", to prove some point about
the superiority of examples in the HTML5 spec.


i am not going to bother responding to the the rest of your inflamatory guff.

see ya!




2008/5/12 Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>:
>
>  On May 12, 2008, at 8:59 AM, Steven Faulkner wrote:
>
>
> >
> > > Defining any content produced by the use case to be non-conforming is
> > >
> > not >handling the use case, at least for purposes of document
> > conformance.
> >
> > That is your opinion, others including myself think otherwise.
> >
>
>  It is not a matter of opinion. Making a use-case non-conforming is by
> definition not handling it for purposes of document conformance. It may be a
> conscious choice to reject a use case, but it is not support.
>
>
>
>
> > re your example:
> > "<p id="info">Complete explanation of a chart with full details.</p>
> > <img src="chart.png" alt="Explanation of chart." aria-describedby="info">"
> >
> > The user may also access it like this:
> >
> > "Complete explanation of a chart with full details". if they skim read
> >
> > or
> >
> > "Explanation of chart". or this if they navigate by graphics or they
> > are using a magnifier/reader which will read content under the mouse
> > cursor.
> >
> > Problem with your argument is you do not take into account the
> > different mechanisms used by people with disabilities to interact with
> > content. It is not purely linear or a matter of whole blocks of
> > content being voiced.
> >
> > You playing around with voiceover and then basing arguments upon your
> > observations, is not a sound basis for much at all.
> >
>
>  From my experience it does lead to redundant content using a screen reader
> to read the whole document or read by paragraph. Are you telling me no
> screen reader user does this? Or does degrading the experience of doing this
> not matter for some reason? Have you personally tried either of the
> alternatives in any form of assistive technology, or watched anyone do so? I
> understand that trying it myself is not much, but it's more than nothing. I
> would like to hear what testing you have done on this issue, that you are so
> glibly dismissive of mine.
>
>
>
> >
> > > That sounds like an appeal to authority, not a justification. Even the
> best
> > > exerts make mistakes, or fail to think through certain edge cases. Or
> > > sometimes, they can reach correct conclusions that non-experts find
> > > surprising, in which case an explanation can be of great benefit.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > Not appeal to authority, nor a justification, but a recognition that a
> > group of people have spent a lot of time working on the guidelines,to
> > provide benefits for people with disabilities. Their priority has been
> > people with disabilities, not browser vendors or authoring tool
> > vendors or authors. So I  trust their advice about what makes an
> > appropriate text alternative over your intuitive fumblings.
> >
>
>  So wait. Do you actually understand the logic behind WCAG 2.0 on this or
> other points? If so, then refusing the explain the logic seems like a
> needless lack of collegiality. If not, does that mean you have just taken
> WCAG 2.0 on faith and applied it without understanding the underlying logic?
> If that is the case, then I do not understand how your proposal can be
> meaningfully discussed.
>
>  Regards,
>  Maciej
>
>



-- 
with regards

Steve Faulkner
Technical Director - TPG Europe
Director - Web Accessibility Tools Consortium

www.paciellogroup.com | www.wat-c.org
Web Accessibility Toolbar -
http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html
Received on Monday, 12 May 2008 19:28:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 13:15:49 GMT