- From: Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2011 16:20:19 -0400
- To: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Dear All, (jump down to "UPDATED DRAFT 20110430" if you want to go straight to the draft) This version of our draft clarification mail on alt validation incorporates updates on: - meta name=generator, from Leif, also incorporating contributions from Benjamin; - figcaption, from Judy, also adjusting for comments from Benjamin. There are still questions pending within the draft below, for Rich, John, and Steve, though comments and replies are welcome from all. Questions include whether we have fully responded to items where clarification was sought, or where it appears to be needed, in the co-chairs' decision that was provided by Maciej: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0451.html I encourage people to look through Maciej's mail as well as the draft below. Note also that, per Sam's mail at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Apr/0421.html ...in response to... http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Apr/0417.html ...that Sam is advising us to add formal change proposals to our clarification mails. In this Monday's meeting, I would first like to see how close we're getting to consensus on this composite clarification mail. Also let's discuss the status of any existing text that we can use for change proopals, and/or what needs to be developed and who is able to help with that. [UPDATED DRAFT 20110430] Dear HTML WG Co-Chairs, With regard to your decisions, as described in Maciej's mail: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0451.html ...which discussed the following issues with regard to validity requirements for alt: >There is a basic disagreement in the group on the validity >requirements for alt. The result was two issues, six change >proposals, and a straw poll for objections: > >http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/31 >http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/80 >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jul/0050.html >http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20090126 >http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20100706 >http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20100707 >http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20100510 >http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20100504 >http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/issue-31-80-validation-objection-poll/results ...and which arrived at the following six conclusions: > * The presence of aria-labelledby does not make missing alt conforming. > * The presence of role=presentation does not make missing alt conforming. > * The presence of <meta name=generator> makes missing alt conforming. > * Use of private communications does not, in > itself, make missing alt conforming. > * The presence of title makes missing alt conforming. > * The presence of figcaption makes missing alt conforming. ...we provide the following clarifications on the four decisions among these that we find problematic. [@@We also provide change proposals for each of these items... (will add once available.)] Please let us know of additional clarification questions on the following information as needed. == On the Co-Chairs' decision on role=presentation == >* The presence of role=presentation does not make missing alt conforming. The default semantics for and image with alt="" is role="presentation". The accessibility API mapping is such that, when alt="", the <img> element is removed from the accessibility API tree to improve assistive technology performance as well as browser performance in that the browser is not maintaining accessible objects for these presentational elements. Applications, such as those from IBM, have used role="presentation" to remove these objects from the accessibility tree as HTML4 does not have the same mapping as we have specified for HTML 5. So, not allowing alt="" and role="presentation" to be used interchangeably violates consistency with the default HTML 5 semantics and is inconsistent with the ARIA specification. [the text above is from Rich and John as indicated in Rich's email http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Apr/0322.html ] [note Leif's subsequent question, to which I can't find a reply; Rich or John can you elaborate your answer to address Leif's questions, or indicate your reply if I've missed it? http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Apr/0330.html ] [Rich and John, can you look back at Maciej's decision on role=presentation and check that you have addressed all of the relevant arguments in that section, or add to your reply if needed? http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0451.html ] == On the Co-Chairs' decision on meta name=generator == * The presence of <meta name=generator> makes missing alt conforming. [updated text from Leif, with some points from Benjamin] In regards to the generator decision we would first of all comment 5 kinds of evidence which the chairs suggested as reasons to reopen the decision: 1. EVIDENCE: DELIBERATELY OMITTING ALT DUE TO GENERATOR EXCEPTION Link text is often visually hidden because it is [supposed to be] located inside the @alt of an img element. [1] For link text, then HTML5 creates the reasonable expectation that [1] "markup generators should examine the link target to determine the title of the target, or the URL of the target, and use information obtained in this manner as the alternative text". If generator vendors stop expecting from themselves that their tools are able to provide proper link text just because the link text is kept inside an image, and instead point to their "bad users" as justification for why they need a generator exception, then we believe there is evidence to suggest that the exception does a disservice for accessibility. In that regard, since the example images provided as well as most other images at Wikipedia are image links, we interpret MediaWiki developer Aryeh Gregor's presentation [3] (see follow-up thread too) of MediaWiki bug number 368, as a strong hint that the generator exception is likely to be used as justification for settling with less than the state-of-the-art with regard to image accessibility. PS: If the gist of the question for evidence that omission of @alt increases because of the generator exception is that no one will care do do so, then why do we need this exception? [1] http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/embedded-content-1#a-link-or-button-containing-nothing-but-the-image [2] http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/embedded-content-1#guidance-for-markup-generators [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0459 2. EVIDENCE: LIST OF AUTHORING TOOLS (MIS)USING THE META GENERATOR As the HTML5 validation performed by validator.nu and validator.w3.org currently treat even pages without the generator string as if they did include generator string (namely: omitted @alt always considered conforming), it is for the time being difficult to look for evidence that vendors have let the generator exception interfere with proper inclusion of alt. However, according to the MAMA project, 27% of web pages include the generator string. [7] Hence, both tool vendors and tools users would be certain to get lots of gotcha experiences if the generator string were to trick them into thinking that their pages have been fullly validated, when they are not. E.g. authors that take tool output (e.g. from HTML Tidy, which do have a generator string) as basis for hand coding, would often forget to remove the generator string. Copy-paste of code in general would lead to the same result, especially for novice authors. (More documentation of generator strings in tools: [5][6][7]) We know www-validator@w3.org that nothing frustrates authors more than validator messages that are based on cryptic rules: Just the last 4 days there were 2 questions relating to the HTML4 validator's pedantic, SGML-based need for end tag escaping inside the script element.[8][9] In the case of the script element, with its 'stricter than reality' rules, then it doesn't affect users. But in the case the effect of the generator string, not only will it surprise and frustrate authors/vendors, but more importantly: it will also frustrate users. [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0711 [5] The list in the original change proposal from Laura Carslon [6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0474 [7] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0580 [8] http://www.w3.org/mid/2334982876.988140239@xn--mlform-iua.no [9] http://www.w3.org/mid/20110428212421748350.14424349@xn--mlform-iua.no 3. EVIDENCE: THE MESSAGE THAT @ALT CAN BE OMITTED IS HARMFUL (This section is really a sub issue of 1.) A WHATwg blog post from 2007 (before ARIA was introduced in HTML5) about why alt can be omitted, can testify to the fact that the @alt issue has been a contested issue in the HTMLwg. [10] Four years later, validator.nu (http://validator.nu/?doc=http%3A%2F%2Fmat-t.com) and validator.w3.org (http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fmat-t.com) do still not check for omitted/included @alt before they issue their Valid stamps. Thus there is a chance that "weak souls" has gotten the impression that HTML5 has laxed rules for alternative text. Has this lead to less use of @alt in HTML5 pages compared with HTML4 pages? A manual check of 60 first front pages listed in the HTML5 gallery per 28th of April 2011, [11] gave as result that 12 were lacking @alt. [Reference 12 to 24]. According to the MAMA project, 21% of img elements in the wild have @alt omitted. [11b] That 12 of 60 pages have instances of omitted @alt is proably roughly the same percentage. Nevertheless, these example pages are not developed by "weak souls" or by "generators" but by developers that wants their work to be listed as examples of HTML5. Some of the worst examples: One [12] has 20 img elements but not a single @alt. Ref [19] has 9 img elements and not a single alt. Ref [20] has 8 (of 9) images with omitted alt. Another one [19] has @alt omitted in 8 of 23 img-s. Another: 9 of 9 lacks @alt. [23] A check of notable pages outside the HTML5 gallery: the HTML5boilerplate.com [25] has no alt on its HTML5 badge. Ditto for html5readiness.com [26]. Two HTML5 tutorials which forgets @alt.[27][28] And Google's slides.html5rocks.com omits @alt on 9 out of 23 iamges (without using whether <figure> or ARIA features). [29] Conclusions? These are hand authored pages - at least they are made by web professionals. According to the thinking behind the generator exception, generator made pages will show more lack of alt than the hand made ones. We think it is worrying that thus many HTML5 example pages show these deficits with regard to @alt. [10] http://blog.whatwg.org/omit-alt [11] http://html5gallery.com/page/2/ [11b] http://dev.opera.com/articles/view/mama-images-elements-and-formats/#img [12] http://mat-t.com [13] http://www.tweetoon.co.uk [14] http://www.aviary.com/html5builder [15] http://www.dielinke-europa.eu [16] http://blackbull.in [17] http://wantist.com [18] http://ffpbooth.com [19] http://www.kubimedia.com [20] http://jeffaquino.com [21] http://www.jswidget.com [22] http://www.dooity.com [23] http://www.pelanidea.com [24] http://onenyne.com [25] http://html5readiness.com [26] http://HTML5boilerplate.com [27] http://tutorialzine.com/2010/02/html5-css3-website-template [28] http://net.tutsplus.com/tutorials/html-css-techniques/html-5-and-css-3-the-techniques-youll-soon-be-using [29] http://slides.html5rocks.com 4. EVIDENCE: "A demonstrated trend towards more authoring tools fully supporting ATAG2, including the requirement to prompt for textual equivalents for images." We would like to point to the fact that it is precisely generators (including WYSIWYG editors) that prompt for textual equivalents for images - hand authoring tools don't as then they wouldn't be pure hand authoring tools, would they? The HTMLwg was recently presented with a short, qualitative evaluation of some tools with regard to prompting and which showed that many, even e-mail programs, do prompt for alt text. [30] Interestingly, even plain text editors have started to help authors offering @alt text: if you drop an image into a HTML file edited with the mode sensitive TextMate.app for Mac OS X, it will auto-create an img element for you where it uses the file name (minus suffix) as @alt text. The @alt text selected and highlighted so you can change it immediately if you see need to. To use file names as @alt text is a common pattern of conversion tools such as hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 [30] and TextEdit.app word processor bundled with Mac OS X (whenever it saves a page as a webarchive file). TextEdit.app uses the 'Cocoa HTML Writer' generator. Thus prompting is not the only important thing, it is also important to simply make the author aware of how the program operates. We would turn the evidence asked for on the head: where is the trend that shows that pages with the generator string have especially low alt text quality? [30]Â http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0580 5. EVIDENCE: HTML e-mail doesn't justify the generator exception The Decision placed the private e-mail exception under the generator umbrella, thereby creating an exception that in teory is many times more broad than private e-mail exception. We will therefore look at whether HTML e-mail can justify the generator exception. ON THE ONE SIDE: W3 has had workshop on HTML in e-mail where accessibility in general and alt text in particular, was one of the issues dealt with. [32] Safari allows to send web pages as e-mail. [32] And Outlook 2007 allows you to install a HTML-validator. The e-mail standards project focuses on (mainly) CSS support in e-mail. [34] All this hint that standards compliant HTML is *possible* and wanted. (We do in particular want to note that Thunderbird's HTML editor, which prompts for @alt text, will make use of the @alt text of an image in the plain text version of the message that it is able to create and sent int parallel. Thus it has a practical value beyond HTML-only accessibility.) According to some advertisement experts, April 2011, @alt text is "extremely important for HTML emails, because some email clients block images". [35] BUT ON THE OTHER SIDE: We have studied a few HTML e-mail messages, mainly those sent to public-html, and found the following: Apple Mail does not include any DOCTYPE in its (native) HTML e-mail messages. (It seems to often not include alt text in images either.) We don't know if this means that it therefore renders web pages in quirks mode. Outlook, in contrast, tends to send out very long, non-standard DOCTYPE strings. We don't know if this means that it renders such pages in quirks-mode. Lotus Notes 2010 does not include any DOCTYPE. We don't know if Lotus notes therefor renders its own messages in quirks mode. A message we sent from Thunderbird turned out to use the HTML4 Transitional DOCTYPE, and we did not spot any options for choosing another DOCTYPE. We have not checked whether this causes quirks-mode rendering in Thunderbird. A Welcome letter sent from Google AdWords contains no DOCTYPE - the only head element stuff it has is a meta charset element. OBSERVATIONS: E-mail messages in general are very rich on "generator messages" in its MIME headers - either in the form of a X-Mailer: header or a User-Agent: header, plus various other "stamps". In contrast, we did not locate the meta@name=generator element in the HTML messages we looked at. We also note that e-mail messages take their title from the Subject: header and not from the <title> element. Whether HTML standards fully matters for HTML e-mail is disputed. [36] CONCLUSIONS: (1) There are enough generator signals in e-mail, even without the generator string. (2) The role of the DOCTYPE and the head elements - HTML standards - in e-mail is a bit unclear. But in a situation where e-mail messages tend to not include any (no-quirks) DOCTYPE or any other head element elements, it is irrelevant to justify the generator exception by pointing to HTML e-mail. After all, there are many much more important HTML features to implement in HTML e-mail before the generator string? (3) At the same, @alt text is so important in e-mail that it is pointless to even create the impression that it isn't. [31] http://www.w3.org/2007/05/html-mail/minutes [31] http://www.w3.org/2007/05/html-mail/minutes#item05 [32] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-mail/2007Mar/0000 [33] http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa338200.aspx [34] http://www.email-standards.org/clients/ [35] http://www.ctiadvertising.com/2011/04/08/alt-text-in-email/ [36] http://www.w3.org/2007/05/html-mail/html-rendering-email IN ADDITION to the evidence which the chairs asked for, we will also make the following points about why the generator exception should be reexamined: A. A VERSIONING ELEMENT IS AN ELEMENT OF UNCERTAINTY The meta@name=generator exception has a direct parallel in the generator exception for WYSIWYG editors present in HTML5 in the January 2008 draft, [1] and which Karl Dubost described as a form of versioning. [2][3] 'Real' versioning, in form of strict/transitional modes etc, is banned from HTML5 - at the latest in a Decision in December 2010. [4] One (so far hypothetical) problem is that the generator exception could cause vendors to treat images differently when they operate with the generator flag present. Another effect could be that, just as authors continues to be confused by the effect of 'strict' and 'transitional', a generator exception would create confusion as well. Authors expect validators to act in a transparent manner. If the validator silently passes over missing @alt in generated code, then that will trick authors who are used to errors raised over their hand coding into thinking they haven't missed an @alt. The HTML5 validator(s) may also be embedded in authoring tools, resulting in confusing error display differences depending on the validation "mode". (Also see '2. EVIDENCE: LIST OF AUTHORING TOOLS (MIS)USING THE META GENERATOR') HTML5 gives as justification for forbidding the transitional/quirks DOCTYPEs that they: [4a] "are known to cause especially subtle or serious problems" which are "largely undocumented". And we find that the effect of @alt omission is largely undocumented, with unpredictable consequences as well: AT/UAs may try to repair, but in hard to calculate and unhelpful ways. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-html5-20080122/#wysiwyg [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Aug/0290 [2] http://www.w3.org/QA/2007/05/html_and_version_mechanisms [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Dec/0135 [4a] http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/introduction#syntax-errors B: GENERATOR STRING IS NO QUALITY LEVEL STAMP In 2007, the HTML5 editor described the WYSIWYG generator exception which the HTML5 draft then had, as a "solution for handling ... two tiers of document quality". [5]Â The 2007 WYSIWYG generator stamp permitted you to use <font> and @style. But if WYSIWYG editors is a diverse group, were not all of them "need" to use <font>, the encompassing group of markup generators is an even more diverse group, ranging from simple converters to full-fledged authoring tools and CMS applications with very diverse options with regard to the opportunities they provide authors with when it comes to ensuring good @alt text. What is important to consider, however, is that regardless of the authoring tool's features, good markup *always* requires an author that is familiar with the possibilities and short comings of the authoring tool. The HTML5 editor has never presented evidence to suggest that the tool vendors *or* tool users *want* that the generator strings to "free" them from @alt validation. Instead we have evidence which shows that at least one generator vendor claims that precisely the fact that their tool is a HTML generator leads to code which is "clean and standards compliant all the time". [5a] Further, we do also lack evidence to suggest that generators which output the generator string have a particular need for such a @alt omission permission. [5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Aug/0186 [5a] http://www.softpress.com/kb/questions/87/ C: GENERATOR IS ALREADY IN USE FOR OTHER PURPOSES Authoring tools use the generator string as a kind of signal to those who view source - to identify pages made by their product. Softpress documents in their KnowledgeBase that they use it for debugging purposes. [6] The HTMLwg has many times rejected to reinterpret legacy HTML features in incompatible ways - this is why <figcaption> and <summary> was created and <dt> and <dd> was rejected as child-elements of <figure> and <details>. A reinterpretation of the meta@name=generator string appears very similar to the predefined class names that the HTML5 draft had in 2007. Like authors should be free to use class names as they wish, the generator string should continue to be in the generator vendors' free domain. [6] http://www.softpress.com/kb/questions/47/ D: DROPS ALL REQUIREMENTS ON THE FLOOR The generator exception drops all authoring requirements for @alt text on the floor, even those which are easy machine checkable MUST requirements in HTML5. For example the requirement that an img element that is the sole content of a link MUST have alt text that is suitable as link text. [7][8] (And argument could be made that the @alt of such images should be checked as if they were link text rather than @alt text.) Authors and tool vendors must be taught to make choices - accessibility and code quality is not brought forward by cultivating a spirit which says "if you aren't absolutely 100% certain, then it is better you don't put anything inside the @alt". [7] http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/embedded-content-1#a-link-or-button-containing-nothing-but-the-image [8] http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/embedded-content-1#guidance-for-markup-generators E: ALTERNATIVES TO THE GENERATOR EXCEPTION Leif has proposed a change proposal [9] which consider all img elements without @alt as invalidatable while at the same time helping authors to fix them. That CP also makes no distinction between generators and other authoring tools. We are not locked to his unfinished CP, but we find it a much better starting point than the generator exception. [9] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0480 == On the Co-Chairs' decision on the presence of title making missing alt conforming == >* The presence of title makes missing alt conforming. [ starting with the initial text from Rich] Title has a completely different function from alt in HTML. Title is used to generate a tooltip, and is invisible when images are turned off. Alt does not generate a tooltip, and is visible when images are turned off. If title is allowed as alternative text over alt it will break applications such as Yahoo! mail; it will also break a commonly-used feature, in less powerful mobile phones, where images are turned off to improve performance. If title were to be used in place of alt then when images are turned off in the browser, nothing meaningful will be shown in the browser. Furthermore, having title take precedence over alt will result in tooltips being generated on decorative images and spacers, which would do tremendous harm to the user experience. It should be noted that title is used as a last resort when other measures cannot be employed to compute the label or "name" of an object in the accessibility API mapping for browsers. Please note the following demonstrations of failures resulting from the proposed approach: http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/misc/HTML5/alt-tests/screenshots.html [and now adding the following from Steve http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Apr/0321.html ] figure/figcaption provides the opportunity to convey a clear semantic differention between a caption and a text alternative. Use of the title attribute does not. title maps to the accessible name property (in cases where no other accessible label is provided) in accessibility APIs while <figcaption> can be mapped to a caption role in accessibility APIs. The <http://accessibility.linuxfoundation.org/a11yspecs/ia2/docs/html/>IAccessible2 and <http://people.gnome.org/%7Ebillh/at-spi-idl/html/namespaceAccessibility.html#a216>AT-SPI accessibility API's have caption roles: "ROLE_CAPTION The object contains descriptive information, usually textual, about another user interface element such as a table, chart, or image." It has also been suggested that a caption role be added to ARIA next. (<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/wai-xtech/2011Apr/0007.html>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/wai-xtech/2011Apr/0007.html) The accessible support story for the title attribute has always been poor and there is no indication that this will change. NO graphical browser provides device independent support for display of tooltips and the support has not improved over the last 6 years since I detailed issues with the title attribute in 2005 [4]. So far no browser vendor representatives have given a positive response to Steve's query [1] about whether this will change, but 2 stated there are no plans to [2]. Support for the display of title attribute content has decreased markedly over the last few years, none (to my knowledge) of the mobile or touch screen browsers developed provide access to it. I have recently published Information and guidance based on current known issues [3]. [1]<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0468.html>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0468.html [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0490.html <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0507.html>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0507.html [3] http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/2010/11/using-the-html-title-attribute/ [4] <http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/articles/WE05/>http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/articles/WE05/ [Rich, Steve, does this text fully address any clarifications needed in response to Maciej's arguments in his discussion of title? http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0451.html ] == On the Co-Chair's decision on the presence of figcaption == >* The presence of figcaption makes missing alt conform [additional edits from Judy, including in response to comments from Benjamin] ** FIGCAPTION IS NOT AN APPROPRIATE REPLACEMENT FOR ALT Depending on the type of image and the type of publication, figure captions may be either concise or verbose. When information contained in figcaption is detailed and complicated, it is more similar to that supplied by the current longdesc attribute than to that supplied by alt. alt, on the other hand, is normally brief, and identifies the image rather than fully describing it, especially when the image is complex. Permitting figcaption to take the place of alt will in some situations result in more information being delivered to the user than the user needs or wants. The user should be able to access the information in figcaption, but not be deprived of the type of information they would normally receive through alt. More specifically, figcaption may not fulfill the needs of assistive technology users, particularly blind or visually impaired users/screen-reader users. Figure captions describe images that users _can_ see. In contrast, alt and longdesc attributes identify and/or describe images that users _cannot_ see. The two audiences are different, and as such may require different approaches for image description. For instance, in scientific publications, information presented in figure captions will often state the scientific principles being illustrated, but not describe the illustration nor necessarily even identify the image since many authors assume that their audience can identify and discern information that is presented visually. To adequately support the needs of blind or visually impaired users may require description of visually discernable information that sighted users would object to as redundant if presented in a visible description via figcaption. ** MANY ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY USERS WOULD BE UNABLE TO ACCESS FIGCAPTION AS AN ALT SUBSTITUTE No screen reader in use today supports figcaption. Popular screen readers today do support the reading of the alt attribute and, in some cases, the longdesc attribute. Users are accustomed to locating image descriptions and identifiers via these two methods. If alt is omitted because a figcaption exists, current screen readers will not notify the user that a description exists in figcaption rather than alt. Updating screen readers is non-trivial not only for screen reader developers but especially for web users who may be on limited budgets, as these can be expensive assistive technologies, and some users may require the more comprehensive support and feature control in more expensive versions in order to maintain their livelihoods. Even where updated versions of screen readers are available in some languages at potentially low-cost or no-cost, the lag time for availability in other languages may be long. Also, even when updated versions of screen readers are available and affordable in local languages, newer versions may introduce compatability problems with screen-reader users' other applications. Therefore, failing to support established mechanisms for providing information about images via alternative text may break existing means of accessing accessibility information, and cause harm to people with disabilities including blind and visually impaired web users. Delivering a brief description or identifier via the alt attribute is an established, successful mechanism in HTML. Making missing alt conforming in the presence of figcaption would, for many types of images, replace alternative text with a less appropriate substitute; and, for many screen reader users, be inaccessible to them because of lack of support in the assistive technology available to them. Please let us know if additional clarifications are needed, and thanks in advance for your re-consideration. [@@note, as per comment above, we will also incorporate change proposals] Regards, .... -- Judy Brewer +1.617.258.9741 http://www.w3.org/WAI Director, Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI), World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) MIT/CSAIL Building 32-G526 32 Vassar Street Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA
Received on Saturday, 30 April 2011 20:22:49 UTC