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

Re: no-title CP - remarks

From: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 20:03:33 +0100
Message-ID: <BANLkTin+XEevR0WUHLTMYjoU1LNyg4WhyA@mail.gmail.com>
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>
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.


On 11 May 2011 19:26, Leif Halvard Silli

> 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 |
HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives -
Web Accessibility Toolbar - www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html
Received on Wednesday, 11 May 2011 19:11:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 20 January 2023 19:59:01 UTC