Decision on CfC: FPWD of Revised CAPTCHA Note


Only messages in support of this CfC(1) have been received. Publication
of an updated and revised "Inaccessibility of CAPTCHA" First Public
Working Draft can, therefore, now proceed as an APA consensus action.

Please note that editorial revisions preparing the document for FPWD
were contemplated in this CfC.[2] The proposed publication was also
agreed without objection during APA[3] and RQTF[4] teleconferences

This FPWD will now be published using the existing URI for the
"Inaccessibility of CAPTCHA" document. The former revision will remain
accessible via a link in the new document at:

Thanks to all who worked to revise and update this document.

Janina Sajka
APA Chair


Janina Sajka writes:
> Colleagues:
> This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to the Accessible Platform
> Architectures (APA) Working Group on the publication of a First Public
> Working Draft (FPWD) of an updated and revised "Inaccessibility of
> CAPTCHA" document:
> "
> Please note the quick turnaround on this CfC. Comments are due by close
> of business Boston time Wednesday. If you need more time, please advise.
> A revision and update of our 2004 W3C Note has long been on our agenda.
> Thanks to assistance from our Research Questions Task Force (RQTF), we
> finally have a document we believe can shortly update our published
> guidance on this topic. We are seeking wide review in the FPWD process.
> We are also expecting at least one more draft publication seeking wide
> review call before finalizing our updated document as a W3C Note.
> Please review the document at the above URI. Please note that several
> editorial tweaks are expected before publication as a FPWD, but no
> substantive changes are contemplated.
> *       ACTION TO TAKE
> This CfC is now open for objection, comment, as well as statements of
> support via email. Silence will be interpreted as support, though
> messages of support are certainly welcome.
> If you object to this proposed action, or have comments concerning this
> proposal, please respond by replying on list to this message no later
> than 5:00 PM close of business Boston Time, Tuesday 27 June.
> Janina
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Janina Sajka
> Linux Foundation Fellow
> Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup:
> The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
> Chair, Accessible Platform Architectures

>    Here is my proposed feedback to the Timed Text Working Group:
>    <draft-feedback>
>     1. While we appreciate that [1]TTML Profiles for Internet Media
>        Subtitles and Captions 1.1 is depending on [2]Timed Text Markup
>        Language 2 (TTML2), it should still include an introduction that
>        guides the reader to a better understanding of its content.  Such
>        an introduction could respond to the following questions:
>     a. Why are profiles needed for text-only and image-only
>        captions/subtitles?
>     b. What are typical use cases for a image-only captions/subtitles?
>     c. What is the purpose of a presentation processor, and a
>        transformation processor?
>     2. There is a general issue with the way that an author specifies
>        layout characteristics of captions and subtitles, such as font
>        size, font family, line height, background and positioning.  The
>        spec describes the approach of the author specifying a “fixed
>        layout” for captions and subtitles that the user cannot change.
>        However, it must be possible for the user to overwrite the author’s
>        choice of font size, or background color, for example. This is
>        necessary for accessibility reasons, in the same way that browsers
>        allow the user to change font size and background color.  How can
>        we find a good solution for these conflicting interests between
>        author and user?  We would like to get into a discussion with you
>        on this issue.
>     3. Section 2 Documentation Conventions (applies also to [3]Timed Text
>        Markup Language 2 (TTML2) section 2.3). For accessibility of the
>        spec, information such as whether an element is deprecated or
>        obsoleted should not be indicated by color (or background color)
>        alone (cf. [4]WCAG 2.0 SC 1.4.1).
>     4. Section 5.1 General. The method of associating a text profile
>        document instance with an image profile document instance should be
>        specified for interoperability reasons, and not be left open to the
>        specific implementation.  Also, the association should be in both
>        ways, i.e. also from the image profile document instance to the
>        text profile document instance.
>     5. Section 6 Supported Features and Extensions. All font-related
>        features are prohibited for the image profile. This seems to be an
>        unnecessary restriction if the image profile contains images in SVG
>        format which could be rendered differently based on the author’s
>        choice of font characteristics.
>     6. Section 7.7.3 itts:forcedDisplay. This seems like a temporary
>        solution. Wouldn’t it be better to define semantic layers of
>        information that each could be made visible and invisible at
>        runtime as appropriate for the user?  For example, the user may
>        want to see either speech-only (subtitles), narration speech only
>        (parts of subtitles), foreign-language speech-only (parts of
>        subtitles) or any combination of them.
>     7. Section 7.7.4 itts:altText.  While we see this feature as useful
>        for accessibility purposes, it should be mandatory for images
>        rather than recommended only. As mentioned in the spec, one could
>        take the pertaining text passage from the text profile document
>        instance – but (1) an accompanying text profile is not required,
>        and (2) the alternative text for the image could be different from
>        the textual caption. Therefore, the itts:altText element should
>        always be specified, but it should be empty for decorative images
>        (not clear if a “decorative image” used as a caption makes sense
>        anyway). By requiring an itts:altText for every image, but allowing
>        for an empty element in case of a decorative image, we would align
>        it with the alt attribute in HTML5 for images.
>    </draft-feedback>
>    Best regards,
>    Gottfried
>    -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>    Von: Accessible Platform Architectures Working Group Issue Tracker
>    []
>    Gesendet: Mittwoch, 18. Oktober 2017 09:29
>    An:
>    Betreff: apa-ACTION-2152: Review ttml profiles for internet media
>    subtitles and captions 1.1
>    apa-ACTION-2152: Review ttml profiles for internet media subtitles and
>    captions 1.1 [5]
>    [6]
>    Assigned to: Gottfried Zimmermann
> References
>    1.
>    2.
>    3.
>    4.
>    5.
>    6.


Janina Sajka

Linux Foundation Fellow
Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup:

The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
Chair, Accessible Platform Architectures

Received on Wednesday, 27 June 2018 22:32:51 UTC