Re: Add rationale or exclude role="presentation", aria-labelledby & aria-labelled attributes from alt change proposal? Help needed. (was Re: ISSUE-31 Change Proposal)

(+public-html, since the request for update was sent there initially)

Thanks. I believe this satisfies the request for updates. I'll update the issue status page.

Regards,
Maciej

On Jul 7, 2010, at 7:49 AM, Laura Carlson wrote:

> Hello Everyone,
> 
> As you know the HTML WG Chairs asked that rationale be provided for
> the aria-labelledby and aria-labelled and role="presentation" options
> in the alt "Replace img Guidance for Conformance Checkers" Change
> Proposal [1] for HTML Issue 31.
> 
> I asked the accessibility task force for help to supply rationale [2].
> 
> To date I have received no response to my inquiry.
> 
> Maciej asked [3] that I exclude the aria-labelledby and aria-labelled
> and role="presentation" options, if I did not add rationale.
> 
> I have done so in a new change proposal. This proposal allows <img>
> only to be valid with <alt> or <figcaption>. This new offering is at:
> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20100707
> 
> I did find some bullet points stating advantages for aria-labelledby
> in Steve's "HTML5: Techniques for Providing Useful Text Alternatives"
> [4]. So I created an additional new change proposal for <img> to be
> valid only with <alt> or <figcaption> or aria-labelledby. It is at:
> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20100706
> 
> Maciej, Sam, and Paul, please add these two new additional change
> proposals to the change proposal table for Issue 31 [5]:
> 
> 1. <img> valid only with <alt> or <figcaption> or aria-labelledby
> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20100706
> 
> 2. <img> valid only with <alt> or <figcaption>
> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20100707
> 
> I also added Steve's bullet points to the original (accessibility task
> force endorsed) change proposal. [1]
> 
> If anyone can supply text which delineates rationale for and
> role="presentation" or labelledby or further/better rationale for
> aria-labelledby please, please speak up, I would be delighted to add
> it to the original proposal and ImgElement20100706.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> Best Regards,
> Laura
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20090126
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Jun/0213.html
> [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jun/0588.html
> [4] http://www.w3.org/TR/html-alt-techniques/
> [5] http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/issue-status.html#ISSUE-031
> 
> Related References asking for task force help on Issue 31 change proposal:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Jan/0310.html
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Feb/0008.html
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Mar/0007.html
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Apr/0134.html
> 
> On 6/24/10, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hello everyone,
>> 
>> -public-html
>> +public-html-a11y
>> 
>> Maciej has asked [1] for added rationale in the alt change proposal
>> for role="presentation", aria-labelledby & aria-labelled attributes.
>> 
>> Or else he suggests excluding these three options from the proposal.
>> 
>> He has said what we currently have is factual description of what
>> these mechanisms are and what they do. But we have no reason for why
>> the spec should be allowed to omit alt when one of these is present.
>> 
>> So should I remove these options? Or does anyone have suggest text to
>> add to the proposal to justify these options better?
>> 
>> The current text in the change proposal states [2]:
>> 
>> QUOTE
>> 
>> Added Options which Address Accessibility
>> 
>> The language of WCAG2 allows a text alternative to be expressed in
>> other ways besides the alt attribute. Three cases in particular
>> distinguish syntax for cases, which yield more accessible content.
>> 
>> role="presentation" Attribute
>> 
>> role="presentation" programmatically conveys to assistive technology
>> that an image is presentational and not of interest.
>> 
>> aria-labelledby and aria-labelled Attributes
>> 
>> When the natural concise text alternative is available elsewhere on a
>> page the aria-labelledby and aria-labelled attributes can be an
>> accessible alternative for an image as it programmatically conveys
>> meaning to assistive technology. For example:
>> 
>> <h2 id="bronze">Bronze Medal</h2>
>> <!-- Some page content -->
>> <img src="bronzemedal.png" aria-labelledby="bronze">
>> 
>> UNQUOTE
>> 
>> All guidance and suggestions greatly appreciated. Thank you.
>> 
>> Best Regards,
>> Laura
>> 
>> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jun/0588.html
>> [2]
>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20090126#Added_Options_which_Address_Accessibility
>> 
>> 
>> On 6/23/10, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Jun 23, 2010, at 11:30 AM, Laura Carlson wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi Sam,
>>>> 
>>>> I think/hope that I have now addressed the concerns that you have
>>>> raised.
>>>> I:
>>>> 
>>>> 1. Added rationale for all changes.
>>>> 2. Removed the reference to the paragraph-section-heading loophole, as
>>>> Ian indeed removed it from the spec per as requested in Bug 9217.
>>>> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9217
>>>> I just hope it doesn't reappear in the spec.
>>>> 
>>>> In addition, I updated all three of my current proposals for Issue 31.
>>>> So far, all together I have three proposals and possibly a fourth.
>>>> They are:
>>>> 
>>>> 1. Replace img Guidance for Conformance Checkers. January 26, 2010.
>>>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20090126
>>>> In this one I tried to incorporate WAI CG's advice.
>>>> http://www.w3.org/2009/06/Text-Alternatives-in-HTML5
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I still don't see any rationale given for the following three alt
>>> exemptions
>>> added by your change proposal:
>>> 
>>> * aria-labelledby attribute present (non-empty only)
>>> * aria-label attribute is present (non-empty only)
>>> * role attribute is present and has a value of "presentation".
>>> 
>>> The "Rationale" section has a factual description of what these
>>> mechanisms
>>> are and what they do, but as far as I can tell, no reason is given for
>>> why
>>> it should be allowed to omit alt when one of these is present. Please
>>> either
>>> add rationale for these changes or adjust the scope of the Change
>>> Proposal
>>> to exclude them.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> There are also rationale sections relating to a "CAPTCHA Loophole" and a
>>> "WebCam Loophole" which do not appear to relate to any actual changes
>>> proposed in the Details section. That's not as critical a problem as
>>> changes
>>> without rationale, but it's something you may wish to address.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> Maciej
>> 
>> On 6/23/10, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>>> This change proposal needs to be updated both in order to provide a
>>> rationale for each change requested, and to reflect differences from the
>>> current draft of the document.
>>> 
>>> As a concrete example, the proposal provides no rationale for removing
>>> the paragraph-section-heading "loophole" save for a pointer to a bug
>>> report, and the resolution of that bug report indicates that that
>>> condition was removed.  Looking at the current text, this condition is
>>> indeed no longer present:
>>> 
>>> http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#guidance-for-conformance-checkers
>>> 
>>> Other specific examples: There is rationale given for allowing
>>> role="presentation", aria-label or aria-labeledby as exemptions for alt.
>>> 
>>> - Sam Ruby
>>> 
>>> On 02/11/2010 03:03 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>>> (+public-html)
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Laura,
>>>> 
>>>> I've recorded this as an additional Change Proposal for ISSUE-31:
>>>> http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/issue-status.html#ISSUE-031
>>>> 
>>>> (I've suggested previously that you and Ian should work together to
>>>> identify any changes here that are uncontroversial, so they can be
>>>> directly applied to the HTML5 draft; I hope the two of you find some
>>>> time to make progress on that.)
>>>> 
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Maciej
>>>> 
>>>> On Jan 28, 2010, at 2:18 AM, Laura Carlson wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hello Everyone,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I have drafted a Change Proposal for HTML ISSUE-31.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Summary:
>>>>> The current guidance for conformance checkers for Section 4.8.2.1 the
>>>>> img element is unclear and does not implement WAI CG's advice on the
>>>>> validation of short text alternatives. This change proposal replaces
>>>>> the current guidance with clear guidance that lists all required short
>>>>> text alternative options that exist to be considered valid. It enables
>>>>> automatic validators to programmatically detect the presence or
>>>>> absence of text alternatives.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Full proposal is at:
>>>>> http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20090126
>>>>> 
>>>>> Ideas for improvement are most welcome.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>> Laura
> 
> --
> Laura L. Carlson
>

Received on Thursday, 8 July 2010 09:24:00 UTC