- From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 16:12:12 -0500
- To: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
For the Accessibility Task Force's information: QUOTE: *** Decision of the Working Group *** Therefore, the HTML Working Group hereby adopts the following text for the first two paragraphs of the img element definition: An img element represents an image. The image given by the src attribute is the embedded content; the value of the alt attribute provides equivalent content for those who cannot process images or who have image loading disabled. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0452.html ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 16:51:43 -0400 Subject: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-31 / ISSUE-80 verbiage survey To: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org> The decision follows. The chairs made an effort to explicitly address all arguments presented in the Change Proposals on this topic in addition to arguments posted as objections in the poll. *** Question before the Working Group *** There is a basic disagreement in the group as to what text should be used for the img element definition. The result was an issue, four distinct change proposals, and a straw poll for objections: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/31 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jul/0050.html http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20100510#Correcting_the_Definition http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20100504#Correcting_the_Definition_to_Provide_Equality http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/first_2_paragraphs_of_definition_of_img#Rationale http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/issue-31-80-verbiage-objection-poll/results These Change Proposals are numbered 1, 5, 6, and 7 in the analysis below. Note: other aspects of these issues included other Change Proposals and led to separate polls. Additionally, we received input from the HTML WG's TPAC 2010 Face2Face meeting: http://www.w3.org/2010/11/04-html-wg-minutes.html#item12 == Objections First, from the Change Proposals themselves. From change proposal 1: The <img> element intrinsically is intended to be used for displaying visual images, whence the name of the element. The specification previously claimed that the element was to display content that had both a textual version and an image version, but feedback indicated that this was not realistic: in practice, authors use it to display images, and the alternative text is not a first-class citizen in comparison; ignoring this in the interests of political correctness is unrealistic. Thus, the specification should define the <img> element as representing primarily an image. The argument on the basis of the name of the element was found to be weak. The two separate statements that that any requirement that the the alternative text be a first class citizen was "unrealistic" was also found to be weak as the only evidence put forward to support it was unspecified "feedback". Both change proposals 5 and 6 cited the following from a weblog entry: The HTML5 spec defines the <img> element as an element that "represents an image". The spec then defines alternative text (textual content) as "fallback content". What's wrong with this? These definitions suggest that the visual content (the image) is more important than the textual content. As a result, to many people, if the primary purpose of embedding an image is achieved, the secondary or fallback purpose (textual content) can be skipped or given cursory effort. This argument provides a solid rationale, but lacking any evidence to support the conclusion was only found to be moderately strong. This can be seen as an objection to change proposal 1, but not to any of the remaining proposals. Change proposal 7 cited the HTML WG meeting above, from which we glean that there were objections to anything that doesn't say that alt text is equivalent primary content. This objection was weak in that it captured what was preferred, only gave an indication as to why that might by, and nothing in the form of evidence. This objection would apply to change proposal 1, isn't obvious how it might apply to change proposal 5, and does not apply to proposals 6 or 7. Next from the survey: On proposal 1, we have objections on the basis that the word fallback is not accurate, and is used in a manner radically different from the usage of that word in the context of other elements. On proposal 5, we have objections on the basis that the wording is wrong in that it may not be displayed, or that it can contain symbols. That it inappropriately links display of the alt text to whether or not the image is displayed rather than on whether the alt text is needed or desired. And finally that it inaccurately suggests that both cannot be displayed. On proposal 6, we have objections on the basis that the text is wrong in that the URL is a reference and the contents of the alt attribute might not be textual. These specific claims are disputed, but the fact that this proposed text is inaccurate is not. Additionally, we have an objection on the basis that the text uses the word 'must' for something that is neither testable. Finally, we have an objection that it "seems likely" that there are additional useful visual renderings that would be restricted by this definition. On proposal 7, we have an objection on the basis that the statement is incomplete in that there may be other benefits or uses than the one described. == Evaluation of Objections While we have some specific claims that are disputed, the strongest objections to proposals 1, 5, and 6 are that they are inaccurate. The strongest objection to proposal 7 is that it is incomplete. The word "incomplete" can have a range of meanings from "inaccurate by omission" to "suitable for an introductory paragraph". Lacking any evidence that the additional possible uses are either common or substantially different in their impact from the purpose as described in the short version, this objection was found to be weak. Additionally, this objection would apply equally to other proposals, including proposal 1. *** Decision of the Working Group *** Therefore, the HTML Working Group hereby adopts the following text for the first two paragraphs of the img element definition: An img element represents an image. The image given by the src attribute is the embedded content; the value of the alt attribute provides equivalent content for those who cannot process images or who have image loading disabled. Of the Change Proposals before us, this one has drawn the weaker objections. == Next Steps == A new bug is to be OPENED with the results of this decision, and that bug will be marked as WGDecision. The editor is hereby directed to make the changes in accordance with this decision. == Appealing this Decision == If anyone strongly disagrees with the content of the decision and would like to raise a Formal Objection, they may do so at this time. Formal Objections are reviewed by the Director in consultation with the Team. Ordinarily, Formal Objections are only reviewed as part of a transition request. == Revisiting this Issue == This issue can be reopened if new information come up. Examples of possible relevant new information include: * Evidence that there are additional possible uses are either common or substantially different in their impact from the purpose as described in the adopted proposal. === Arguments not considered: The following objection was not considered: my 'objection' is in lieu of my ability to actively indicate support Proposal #7 as my preferred choice specification language. All we will look at is the objections and rationale presented. Comments that are NOT actual technical objections to material in the change proposal ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE and WILL BE IGNORED. -- Laura L. Carlson
Received on Monday, 18 April 2011 21:12:40 UTC