- From: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
- Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 13:40:08 -0400
- To: Gez Lemon <g.lemon@webprofession.com>
- Cc: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>, Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>, wai-cg@w3.org
Hi, Gez: One correction to what you write ... Our compromise is contingent. The WCAG pointers are required or there's no deal. That's why we say "normative." Janina Gez Lemon writes: > On 9 April 2010 22:51, John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu> wrote: > > Laura Carlson wrote: > >> > >> > > >> > I don't see anything in the resolution that takes this away, > >> > >> Oh but it does. > >> > >> * An error is something that is invalid. > >> * A warning is something that is valid. > > > > Hi Laura, > > > > I am concerned about getting bogged down in the semantics of a word. Where > > are you taking these definitions from? Henri's validators.nu (which, > > AFAIK, is really the only HTML5 validator we have available to us)? > > Isn't this the crux of the issue? The face-to-face group were more > concerned with a glimmer of hope (nothing guaranteed) that Henri's > validator (an experimental application, not formally associated with > the W3C) would be more likely to flag missing alt as a warning than an > error. It appears to be an issue of compromise, albeit one-sided with > no guarantees. By anyone's definition, images without a text > alternative (even if that alternative is to indicate the image is > presentational) are structurally incomplete - an error. The > specification should state that images MUST have a text alternative > (by any of the means proposed by the ALT task force set up to deal > with this issue), but the face-to-face accessibility task force > (emphasis on face-to-face, and that this hasn't yet been accepted by > the task force as a whole) are willing to compromise the specification > for someone's validator. > > > Frankly, we can call it 'green jello' > > Being a foreigner, I have no idea what green jello is, but it sounds > an appropriate name for defining something that is structurally > incomplete as a warning, rather than an error. > > > if the behavior we got was that when > > an <img> lacked an @alt value the author was taken to the WAI-authored > > page on how to fix this 'broken-ness'. To me, *THAT* is what we want to > > have, rather than get stuck over a word. > > Personally, I would rather the specification be correct, rather than > trying to satisfy someone's validator. There aren't even any > guarantees it will be flagged as a warning by this validator; just a > suggestion that it's more likely to be accepted as a warning in this > validator if the accessibility task force are willing to compromise. > By lowering expectations at this early stage, the accessibility task > force are going to find it even more difficult to insist that images > without a text alternative are structurally incomplete when it's > refused, as they are asserting that it's not that important (just a > warning). > > > > > > -- > _____________________________ > Supplement your vitamins > http://juicystudio.com > http://twitter.com/gezlemon -- Janina Sajka, Phone: +1.443.300.2200 sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net Chair, Open Accessibility janina@a11y.org Linux Foundation http://a11y.org Chair, Protocols & Formats Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/wai/pf World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
Received on Saturday, 10 April 2010 17:40:45 UTC