- From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2010 06:37:07 -0500
- To: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
- Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
On 7/8/10, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote: > I believe this satisfies the request for updates. I'll update the > issue status page. Okay. Thank you. Again, it anyone on the accessibility task force can supply text to justify role="presentation" and aria-labelled, please, please do let me know. I would love to add it to the task force endorsed proposal: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20090126 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010May/0033.html Kindest Regards, Laura > 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 >> > > -- Laura L. Carlson
Received on Thursday, 8 July 2010 11:37:40 UTC