W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > May 2011

Re: [text] updated draft, 20110430, of clarification on alt validation

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2011 21:54:24 -0400
Message-ID: <4DBCBD50.6010508@intertwingly.net>
To: public-html-a11y@w3.org
On 04/30/2011 04:20 PM, Judy Brewer wrote:
> 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.

If you do decide to go the new information route, then I would make one 
further suggestion.  Instead of calling the evidence provided 
"clarifications" call it "new information", and explain why you believe 
it to be such.

In cases where the evidence matches what is specifically listed in the 
decision in the "Revisiting this Issue" section, all you need to do is 
to identify it as such.  In all other cases, please add an explanation 
as to why this piece of evidence was not previously discussed.

Note: I am not suggesting that you spend a lot of time on this, in most 
cases a simple sentence or two for each class of new evidence would suffice.

If it helps, here are the portion of the relevant decision from
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0451.html :

> * Use cases that specifically require the use of aria-labelledby with
>   alt omitted.
> * Use cases that specifically require the use of role=presentation
>   with alt omitted.
> * Examples of authors mistakenly or deliberately omitting alt when
>   they might have otherwise, due to the generator mechanism exception.
> * Evidence that a great number of authoring tools are making wide use
>   of the generator exemption, and that this interferes with proper
>   inclusion of alt. (A list of possible generator values was provided
>   in a Change Proposal, but there was no explanation of where it came
>   from. Testing of content generators or direct statements of intent
>   from implementors would provide sufficient evidence.)
> * A demonstrated trend towards more authoring tools fully supporting
>   ATAG2, including the requirement to prompt for textual equivalents
>   for images.
> * Examples of actual users who hand-author HTML emails incorporating
>   images, and would find it overly burdensome to include alt.
> * Examples of other uses for the private communication exemption that
>   are not covered by other exemptions.
> * Evidence that the number of implementations exposing title in an
>   accessible way is decreasing, or that some existing implementations
>   are unwilling or unable to expose it in an accessible way.
> * Evidence that implementations are unwilling or unable to expose the
>   figcaption association to assistive technologies.

- Sam Ruby
Received on Sunday, 1 May 2011 01:54:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:55:55 UTC