FIGCAPTION, @alt, and @labelledby: 3 issues

aloha, laura!

three issues arising from a review of the materials you so expertly 
compiled at:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Jul/0028.html

ISSUE 1: i have a major objection to equating FIGCAPTION with @alt 
or aria-labelledby -- as a content developer, i would like to be able 
to use FIGCAPTION as a caption for an image or a collection of 
images, in the way that LEGEND functions for FIELDSET

<figure>
<figcaption>Four Stages of a Butterfly's Life</figcaption>
<img alt="egg" src="bf1.png" longdesc="bf1.html">
<img alt="larva" src="bf2.png" longdesc="bf2.html">
<img alt="pupa" src="bf3.png" longdesc="bf3.html">
<img alt="adult" src="bf4.png" longdesc="bf4.html">
</figure>

specifying either @alt or FIGCAPTION be used eliminates this 
possibility -- there has been discussion on this topic (associating
multiple images with a single caption that describes the group)
which became bifurcated due to my having initially cross-posted 
the emessage to wai-xtech as well as public-html-a11y:

start: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Jun/0142.html

reply thread 1:
* http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Jun/0143.html
* http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Jun/0144.html

reply thread 2:
* http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/wai-xtech/2010Jun/0010.html
* http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/wai-xtech/2010Jun/0011.html
* http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/wai-xtech/2010Jun/0012.html
* http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/wai-xtech/2010Jun/0013.html
* http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/wai-xtech/2010Jun/0015.html
* http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/wai-xtech/2010Jun/0016.html
* http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/wai-xtech/2010Jun/0019.html

ISSUE 2: i support the use of aria-labelledby as a valid substitute for
@alt ONLY if @labelledby is introduced into HTML5 as a "naked" 
attribute (that is, without the aria- prefix) -- content providers 
cannot count on ARIA support to provide such a fundamental feature
as a terse textual descriptor of an imagenor should they -- this is
a case where native solutions MUST be available to content developers

ISSUE 3: i support use of aria-describedby as a valid substitute for
LONGDESC if, and ONLY if, @describedby is incorporated into HTML5
as a "naked" attribute (again, without the aria- prefix) -- content
providers and users cannot count on ARIA support -- NOR SHOULD THEY --
if a native HTML5 solution is available...  therefore, naked 
@labelledby and @describedby are the only realistic alternatives to
use of @alt and LONGDESC

gregory.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Trouble sharpens the vision. In our moments of distress we can see
clearly that what is wrong with this world of ours is the fact that
Misery loves company and seldom gets it.          -- P.G. Wodehouse
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory J. Rosmaita, oedipus@hicom.net
       Camera Obscura: http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/
             Oedipus' Online Complex: http://my.opera.com/oedipus/
-------------------------------------------------------------------

---------- Original Message -----------
From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
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>
Sent: Thu, 8 Jul 2010 06:37:07 -0500
Subject: Re: Add rationale or exclude role="presentation",
aria-labelledby &       aria-labelled attributes from alt change proposal?
Help needed. (was Re:       ISSUE-31 Change Proposal)

> 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
------- End of Original Message -------