- From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
- Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 19:32:05 -0700
- To: "William Loughborough" <love26@gorge.net>
- Cc: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org
Dear William Loughborough, Thank you for your comments on the 17 May 2007 Public Working Draft of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (WCAG 2.0 http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-20070517/). The WCAG Working Group has reviewed all comments received on the May draft, and will be publishing an updated Public Working Draft shortly. Before we do that, we would like to know whether we have understood your comments correctly, and also whether you are satisfied with our resolutions. Please review our resolutions for the following comments, and reply to us by 19 November 2007 at public-comments-wcag20@w3.org to say whether you are satisfied. Note that this list is publicly archived. Note also that we are not asking for new issues, nor for an updated review of the entire document at this time. Please see below for the text of comments that you submitted and our resolutions to your comments. Each comment includes a link to the archived copy of your original comment on http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/, and may also include links to the relevant changes in the WCAG 2.0 Editor's Draft of May-October 2007 at http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-20071102/ Thank you for your time reviewing and sending comments. Though we cannot always do exactly what each commenter requests, all of the comments are valuable to the development of WCAG 2.0. Regards, Loretta Guarino Reid, WCAG WG Co-Chair Gregg Vanderheiden, WCAG WG Co-Chair Michael Cooper, WCAG WG Staff Contact On behalf of the WCAG Working Group ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 1: use of null alt Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0028.html (Issue ID: 1977) ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/4609E878.5040407@gorge.net (Issue ID: LC-1657) Item number: 1.1.1 Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change) The fourth bullet in 1.1.1 says "If non-text content is pure decoration, or used only for visual formatting, or if it is not presented to users, it is implemented such that it can be ignored by assistive technology." The strong implication is that this provision is there to make for less "babble" of unwanted descriptions of items with little/no non-visual intent. This is typically done by using "" (null alt-text) in place of "alt", "longdesc", whatever and does make for a less-cluttered audio environment in the case of a screen reader. Of greater significance is that it erects an exclusionary wall around a blind user who might be working in a Web Shop and in order to properly deal with the elements in question would be shut out from meaningful communication with co-workers. This should be re-examined from that point of view. Proposed Change: "pure decoration" should not be exempt from descriptive mandates via text. It is OK to make it easy for some blanket filtering, perhaps by putting "decor" at the beginning of the alt-text and having the screen reader know therefrom to not voice that one. ---------------------------- Response from Working Group: ---------------------------- The fourth bullet of SC 1.1.1 requires that "decorative" content be implemented so that it can be ignored by AT. It is up to the AT to decide whether or not to ignore it. We agree that it would be useful for AT to provide different modes or filters, depending on the user's preference. However, unless the content has been identified as decorative, the user agent will be unable to provide that choice. The success criterion in WCAG are intended to cover the normal mode of operation to an end user. A blind developer working in a Web shop would probably be able to use different tools to view the content than an end user (e.g. viewing the source), and so would not be excluded in the manner suggested. ---------------------------- Response from William: ---------------------------- I am not satisfied with the resolution of my comment on 1.1.1 because it still permits 1) a lazy author to simply use null alt-text ("") in place of a description of a non-text element; 2) precludes the possibility of getting past what your comment about my comment says: "The success criterion [sic] in WCAG are intended to cover the normal mode of operation to an end user." There is no "normal mode" - many people want to know what's there whether the author deems them "purely decorative" or not. Such users are more important to the Web than those who are bothered by spoken alt-text covering such elements. --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- Thank you for your comment. The vast majority of screen reader users that have provided input into the WCAG 2.0 do not want to have decorative graphics announced. AT manufacturers implemented the null alt setting in response to the lobby of their users. Without null alt text on purely decorative images there can be a lot of noise on the screen. For instance there may be hundreds of spacer images on the page. WCAG 2.0 is consistent with the WCAG 1.0 and most other Web accessibility standards on this issue. WCAG 2.0 requires that Alt text "presents equivalent information" for all images except for the situations listed, one of which is purely decorative images. If an author places null alt text on a graphic that contains information then they have failed the SC 1.1.1 and cannot claim conformance even at the most basic Level A. This success criterion is testable by humans. In determining whether a graphic is decorative, the context of use of the image must be considered. The same image may have different requirements for text alternatives in different contexts. It is also noteworthy that some screen readers allow the user to change the custom settings so that images that have null alt text read the file name (scr) instead. In specific circumstances such as the one described, customising the screen reader would be appropriate. For example, the JAWS screen reader can be highly customized through its standard settings and the use of scripts to respond to elements of a page in a particular way. For example JAWS can be set to announce the 'alt' value if it is present but to announce the 'src' value in the absence of a value for the 'alt' attribute. The path and/or file name of an image can be implemented to provide the information required about the image. This can be done by going to Utilities/HTML Options/Graphics in JAWS. Note that use of placeholder text is a failure: F30: Failure of SC 1.1.1 due to using text alternatives that are not alternatives (e.g. filenames or placeholder text) We have added a technique describing the use of the ARIA 'presentation' role. In principle, an object could be indicated as presentational with this feature, yet also provide a non-null text alternative. The default behavior for most user agents would be to ignore elements with this role, but a user agent could be configured to provide access to the text alternative if desired in unusual contexts. ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 2: Cognitive disabilities - connect with target audience Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0097.html (Issue ID: 2006) ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- The facts as I've experienced them over 80 years is that the "excluded" 20% (a gross underestimate in my opinion) are in some "lower caste" in virtually all parts of the globe - much like certain cultures' "untouchables". "Untouchable" but hopefully not "unreachable." "They" (which will include most of "us" at some time if we live long enough!) are warehoused, experimented on, tortured, and abused in just about every way so allthough providing some measure of accessibility to Webstuff (while it seems like a minor gain compared to "gene pool purification") is of major importance. Inclusion requires connection. The first step is towards "nothing about us without us." We must connect with the target audience else we will continue their exclusion. And, no, I don't know where to start, but I bet Bro. Chetwynd and Ms. Seeman have some ideas? Love. --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- The Working Group recognizes that "cognitive, learning, and language disabilities" is a broad term that is not a single, homogeneous community, but covers a variety of disabilities. The working group welcomes participation from all people, and would welcome more participation by people with a wide range of physical and cognitive disabilities.
Received on Sunday, 4 November 2007 02:32:36 UTC