- From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2010 09:59:07 -0500
- To: "Gregory J. Rosmaita" <oedipus@hicom.net>
- Cc: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Hi Gregory, Thank you for your review. It is very much appreciated. Besides those three alt change proposals [1] [2] [3] that I have drafted, are three additional alt change proposals: A. Require alt. Correct Definition to Provide Equality. Replace Guidance for Conformance Checkers. May 04, 2010. (makes alt and src attributes equivalent.) http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20100504 In this one I tried to address Vlad Alexander concerns. http://rebuildingtheweb.com/en/correct-img-element-definition/ B. Require alt Ala HTML4. Replace img Definition and Guidance for Conformance Checkers. May 10, 2010. http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20100510 In this one I tried to address Jonas and T.V Raman's concerns. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010May/0186.html C. Back in April I also started a variant of the WAI CG January 26, 2010 proposal. It incorporates an incomplete/missing/noalt attribute, which WAI CG said they would not oppose. But no one has expressed much interest in it. I would need help to specify the element itself. If people want to discuss and collaborate that proposal, it is: Add an incomplete/missing/noalt attribute. Replace img Guidance for Conformance Checkers. http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/User:Lcarlson/ImgElement Can you live with any of these? Any advice on the best way to proceed? Thanks. Best Regards, Laura [1] Replace img Guidance for Conformance Checkers. January 26, 2010. http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20090126 This one incorporates WAI CG's advice. And has an endorsement from the accessibility task force. http://www.w3.org/2009/06/Text-Alternatives-in-HTML5 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010May/0009.html [2] <img> valid only with <alt> or <figcaption> or aria-labelledby. July 6, 2010. http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20100706 This one removes role="presentation" & aria-labelled attributes per Maciej's request. [3] <img> valid only with <alt> or <figcaption>. July 7, 2010. http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20100707 This one removes role="presentation", aria-labelledby & aria-labelled attributes per Maciej's request. On 7/8/10, Gregory J. Rosmaita <oedipus@hicom.net> wrote: > 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 > ------- End of Original Message ------- -- Laura L. Carlson
Received on Thursday, 8 July 2010 14:59:36 UTC