- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 16:35:57 +0100
- To: James Craig <jcraig@apple.com>
- Cc: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>, 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
James Craig, Fri, 22 Nov 2013 15:47:44 -0800: > +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. I am in favor of James' solution, as it it is the closest to separate the concerns. Clearly, it would be more robust to use @alt, so ideally one should get more pluses (or A’s) for using @alt, though, Leif Halvard Silli > 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 Wednesday, 27 November 2013 15:36:32 UTC