- From: James Craig <jcraig@apple.com>
- Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 15:47:44 -0800
- To: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
- Cc: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, WCAG WG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, public-comments-wcag20@w3.org, Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, kirsten@can-adapt.com
+1 to NOT fail an accessibility verification test if <img> has no @alt but does a non-empty value for @aria-label or @title. There should still be a markup validation error, but not an accessibility error. On Nov 22, 2013, at 3:27 PM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca> wrote: > On behalf of the WCAG working group, I have an action item to solicit > responses from the wider community regarding a proposed amendment to WCAG > failure technique F65 regarding missing ALT. Currently; if an <img> element > is missing from an ALT attribute the page fails WCAG SC 1.1.1 Level A. Some > are proposing that we allow authors to use the aria-label, aria-labelledby, > and title attributes INSTEAD of ALT. > > So under the amended failure technique NONE of the following would fail > WCAG: > > <img src="../images/giraffe.jpg" title="Giraffe grazing on tree branches"/> > > <img src="../images/giraffe.jpg" aria-label="Giraffe grazing on tree > branches"/> > > <img src="../images/giraffe.jpg" aria-labelledby="123"/> > <p id="123"> Giraffe grazing on tree branches</p> > > As you can imagine there are strong opinions all around on this so I > suggested we get a sense of what other groups such as the HTML5 A11y TF and > PF think. > > Those in favour of the change provide the following rational: > > --These alternatives on the img element work in assistive technology > --The aria spec says these attributes should get an accessible NAME in the > API > http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria/roles#textalternativecomputation > --They say it's easy to teach beginner programmers to just always use an > aria label on everything, rather than requiring a label on form fields and > alt on images > --They feel as a failure F65 is very strong if fails a page for missing ALT, > especially if other things work, and they would like to soften it to allow > other things that work. > --html 5 allows a <figure><legend> combination instead of alt, so they feel > WCAG will have to change F65 anyway to allow a figure with a legend, and > that helps open the door to this discussion > > Those in favour of the status quo (which fails missing alt text) provide the > following rational: > > --aria-label, labelledby and title, are not really suitable attributes for > img alternative text because they implies a label or title, rather than an > alternate text, so it is not a semantic equivalent > --title is not well supported > --some feel that the aria spec is not in any way suggesting these as > replacements to ALT. > --aria instructs authors to use native html where possible, and they could > not come up with viable use cases of omitting alt text > --there are hundreds of millions of dollars invested in current evaluation > tools, and methodologies, and this would represent a major departure from > one of the most basic accessibility convention, that is almost as old as the > web and is the "rock star" of accessibility > --it could cost a lot of money to change guidance to developers etc..., and > muddy the waters on a very efficient current evaluation mechanism > --when the figure/legend is supported by AT we can amend F65 but that is a > different issue and the semantics of this construct are OK for text > alternatives, rather than the label/labelledby/title options > --it may cause some confidence problems to WCAG legislation, because it > represents a strong loosening to a fundamental Success Criteria, an > unnecessary change that doesn't help the cause of accessibility, but just > complicates things > --ALT is better supported and the text appears when images are turned off. > --initial twitter feedback from the community is strongly against changing > this failure > > > There are probably other reasons on both sides which we hope to hear ... but > these should start it off. Please give your opinions and reasons. > > Current technique here: > http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-TECHS/F65.html > Proposed failure here (see test procedure) > > > > Cheers, > David MacDonald > > CanAdapt Solutions Inc. > Tel: 613.235.4902 > http://ca.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100 > www.Can-Adapt.com > > Adapting the web to all users > Including those with disabilities > > > >
Received on Friday, 22 November 2013 23:48:17 UTC