W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-comments-wcag20@w3.org > March 2011

RE: I think there is a failure missing

From: Sheena McCullagh <sheena.mccullagh@blueyonder.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 00:40:43 -0000
To: "Loretta Guarino Reid" <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Cc: <public-comments-wcag20@w3.org>
Message-ID: <KNEOJNIMDPHDGIPDGJGMKEPGFAAA.sheena.mccullagh@blueyonder.co.uk>
Hi Loretta,

Many, many thanks for this one.  From the email conversations with the other
gentleman, I think you are probably right that ultimately it's the CSS, even
if scripting is being used but adding examples to make this exceptionally
clear is a wonderful way of demonstrating to anyone who has the 'bright
idea' of using scripting or inline HTML styling that this is an unacceptable
'work round'.

  -----Original Message-----
  From: Loretta Guarino Reid [mailto:lorettaguarino@google.com]
  Sent: 24 March 2011 00:20
  To: sheena.mccullagh@blueyonder.co.uk
  Cc: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org
  Subject: Re: I think there is a failure missing

  On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 3:30 PM, <noreply@w3.org> wrote:

    Name: Sheena McCullagh
    Email: sheena.mccullagh@blueyonder.co.uk
    Affiliation: Individual
    Document: W2
    Item Number: Success Criterion 1.1.1
    Part of Item:
    Comment Type: technical
    Summary of Issue: I think there is a failure missing
    Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):
    Failure F3 looks specifically at using CSS to include images that convey
important information.  Part of the rational of this is 'Embedding
information into a background image can also cause problems for people who
use alternate backgrounds in order to increase legibility and for users of
high contrast mode in some operating systems. These users, would lose the
information in the background image due to lack of any alternative text.'

    I totally agree with this rational, however very recently there has been
a trend to either code images as background in the HTML or create them as
backgrounds using scripting.  It doesn't matter what method is used, the
effect is still the same, when those of us who need to over-ride specified
colours do so we lose the image and when those images have functionality, eg
buttons on plug-in editors (I've been in contact with the AGAT 2 people), we
really are stuffed.

    Personally I time this trend with the advent of IE8, in that it no
longer displays the alt attribute text as a tool tip.  To get over this web
designers seem to have taken to coding the images as backgrounds to be able
to use the title attribute instead.  Fine if you're using a mouse and not
over-riding specified colours, but a nightmare for those of us with colour
access needs.  When the images are multiple and set close together, as with
the editor buttons, it becomes impossible to work.

    Proposed Change:
    Either expand F3 to include all methods of coding images in such a way
that they disappear when in over-ride or create a new failure to cover these
additional issues.


  Response from the Working Group
  We agree, although we think that these other methods are still relying on
CSS to provide the background image, so this failure still applies. We are
adding examples and modifying the test procedure to make it clear that this
failure applies whether the background image is specified in an HTML style
element, in a CSS style sheet, or is created via scripting.

  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
Received on Thursday, 24 March 2011 00:40:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:11:13 UTC