Re: WCAG considering amending F65 to NOT fail missing ALT text if title or aria-label is present

I'd like aria-labelledby added to the alternative attributes.


On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 7:35 AM, Leif Halvard Silli <
xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> wrote:

> 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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>