- From: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 20:03:33 +0100
- To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Cc: Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>, Michael Smith <mike@w3.org>, Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <BANLkTin+XEevR0WUHLTMYjoU1LNyg4WhyA@mail.gmail.com>
hi leif, you wrote: "It is fair enough to ask the group like that. But I feel that when you threat to withdraw your proposal unless you have your way, then you put pressure on me to withdraw my own CP:" I am not threatening, my understanding is that within the a11y taskforce, we are trying to reach a consensus position on the various decisions, which can then be put forward to the HTML wg chairs for consideration. I agree with this process and therefore do not seek to undermine or circumvent it. regards stevef On 11 May 2011 19:26, Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>wrote: > Steve Faulkner, Wed, 11 May 2011 16:42:43 +0100: > > >>I'm not open to act as if I agree if I don't agree: what I have said in > >>the CP I can also say in a poll, and the chairs would then have to > >>consider it. > > > > Nobody is asking you, what I am asking of the group (a11y > > taskforce) is if there is consensus to move ahead with the > > proposal i have provided or after considereing your proposal > > the group thinks other wise. > > It is fair enough to ask the group like that. But I feel that when you > threat to withdraw your proposal unless you have your way, then you put > pressure on me to withdraw my own CP: > > >>> [...] If the group wishes to reconsider this > >>> in light of Leif's arguments then the move to re-open the decision > >>> would be defunct and I would withdraw my proposal to re-open. > > Otherwise, what I say in my CP I say because I don't feel that the > chairs would be convinced by your CP. I feel that the argument you make > that support for @title is decreasing is extremely far from the truth > (the truth is the opposite), and hence I doubt the chairs will agree > with your arugment. However, it might well be that chair agree with you > - I have miscalculated them before. And also, if it is not the chairs > you want to convince, then it perhaps doesn't matter. Likewise, if you > are unconvinced, then you should of course pursue what you are > convinced about. > > Meanwhile, we are seeking to put @longdesc into the spec - a feature > for which there *isn't* device independent access, as much as I have > gotten it. (Now you will of course reply that the issue is @title/@alt > and not @longdesc, but nevertheless.) And I agree strongly with Laura > in having put into the proposed spec text that UAs should provide > device independent access to @longdesc. Can we ask anything less? > Should we postpone putting @longdesc into the spec because vendors > haven't promised to provide device independent access to @longdesc? > > Likewise, if there is a general problem with @title w.r.t. device > independent access, then we need to put in HTML5 that UA must provide > device independent access to @title - if vendors are unwilling to > provide such support, then then entire feature must be deprecated. > Hence, I'm not comfortable with using this Decision as an opportunity > to spread general ideas about the inaccessibility of @title (as told > elsewhere, on your job blog you don't even think authors should use > <abbr title="">). If @title is that problematic, then we should be > serious about deprecating @title as such. Can't the @alt issue be > argued without antagonism towards @title? > > Therefore, my CP focus on other problems with the the Decision. And, > just as Judy in her text on figcaption, I take myself the liberty to > not plainly accept the map that the chairs have drawn as correct: > things can be weighted differently from what they did. Therefore I > bring in my reasoning with regard to negative effects of the generator > exception into the title/alt issue. > > PS: Under all this I also sense that our disagreement about whether > @alt="" should be equal to role="presentation", plays a role. At least > it does for myself. After all, the only time you bless the use of > @title, is when the image also has an empty @alt and the IMG thus - per > your reading of how it should be and in agreement with Ian but against > what ARIA says - is considered presentational. Really, we should solve > the question about wether empty @alt equals role=presentation before > this title/alt issue! > > PPS: Even if HTML5 adopts your CP, it is still - as long as the view > that an empty @alt equals role=presentation - still possible to fake > it: Just insert an empty @alt and fill the @title with content. Voila. > Then you and HTML5 will consider it valid. Whereas ARIA supporting AT > as well as all non-blind users will still get access to both the image > and its title. Best way to serve everyone? > -- > Leif H Silli > -- with regards Steve Faulkner Technical Director - TPG www.paciellogroup.com | www.HTML5accessibility.com | www.twitter.com/stevefaulkner HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives - dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/ Web Accessibility Toolbar - www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html
Received on Wednesday, 11 May 2011 19:11:48 UTC