Re: FIGCAPTION, @alt, and @labelledby: 3 issues

aloha, steve!

thanks for the reply -- apologies for not replying sooner...

yes, i was part of that consensus building, but my thoughts on 
FIGCAPTION, @alt and @labelledby have changed since then to those
i articulated in the post to which this post is threaded, just as 
HTML5 has materially changed since the consensus you referenced 
was recorded/submitted, gregory.
----------------------------------------------------------------
CONSERVATIVE, n.  A statesman who is enamored of existing evils,
as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them 
with others.         -- Ambrose Bierce, _The Devil's Dictionary_
----------------------------------------------------------------
             Gregory J. Rosmaita, oedipus@hicom.net
  Camera Obscura: http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/index.html
----------------------------------------------------------------


---------- Original Message -----------
From: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
To: "Gregory J. Rosmaita" <oedipus@hicom.net>
Cc: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, public-html-a11y@w3.org
Sent: Fri, 9 Jul 2010 07:55:46 +0100
Subject: Re: FIGCAPTION, @alt, and @labelledby: 3 issues

> Hi Gregory,
> 
> >ISSUE 1: i have a major objection to equating FIGCAPTION with @alt or
> aria-labelledby
> 
> In the 'WAI CG Consensus Resolutions on Text alternatives in 
> HTML 5' document [1] it was agreed that for HTML5 conformance:
> 
> <img> is only valid when at least one of the following is true:
> 
>    - @alt is present (empty or non-empty) *OR*
>    - @aria-labelledby is present (non-empty only) *OR*
>    - the <img> is located within a <figure> that has a non-empty
>    <figcaption>* OR*
> 
>    - @role="presentation"
> 
> The above has been around for a year or so and has been 
> discussed, and I was under the impression that you were involved 
> in the discussions that resulted in the consensus doc.
> 
> Is what laura has proposed substantially different to the 
> consensus doc or have you changed your views on it?
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2009/06/Text-Alternatives-in-HTML5.html
> 
> regards
> steve
> 
> On 8 July 2010 15:27, 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 image nor 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 -------
> >
> 
> -- 
> with regards
> 
> Steve Faulkner
> Technical Director - TPG Europe
> Director - Web Accessibility Tools Consortium
> 
> www.paciellogroup.com | www.wat-c.org
> Web Accessibility Toolbar -
> http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html
------- End of Original Message -------

Received on Tuesday, 13 July 2010 20:14:22 UTC