- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 07:58:07 -0400
- To: Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>
- CC: HTML WG <public-html.w3.org@w3.org>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <4FB3964F.9080203@intertwingly.net>
On 05/02/2012 02:28 AM, Judy Brewer wrote:
> Paul, Sam, Maciej, All,
>
> Please find an updated re-open request and change proposal for
> Issue31c:Meta Generator at the following URI:
> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/Issue31cMetaGenerator
>
> This proposal requests reconsideration of the portion of the Issue-31
> decision which allows missing alt to be conforming when the meta
> generator flag is present, and identifies deficiencies in the
> specification of the "generator" value.
The HTML WG co-chairs have evaluated this request and are not choosing
to reopen this issue at this time.
Overall Summary:
*
Identification of explicit harm or actual benefits, rather than
implicit harm or presumed benefits, would likely be sufficient to
reopen the issue in combination with the "magic semantics" argument.
*
A number of points made in the original decision
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0451.html>
apply to this reopen request:
o No evidence was provided that more inaccessible content would be
created if the generator exemption is allowed than otherwise. So
this was taken to be a weak objection.
o If supported by concrete evidence, this would have been a strong
objection. This seems like a plausible authoring mistake which
would have negative consequences. But it was weakened by lack of
any specific evidence that this problem has actually occurred in
practice.
o the claim of negative consequences to disallowing this use case
was somewhat weakened by the lack of concrete evidence that
bogus values have been used in the past or would be used in the
future.
o This should be enough time to see at least anecdotal evidence of
the claimed problem.
Details:
Potentially worth considering:
* Magic Semantics
<http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/Issue31cMetaGenerator#The_.22generator_exception.22_inadvertently_and_retroactively_introduces_new.2C_undocumented.2C_magic_semantics>
o Summary: And as a document author, from reading the spec, it is
not at all clear to me from reading the spec that if I keep a
meta generator element that has been added by any tool in the
production or evaluation process, anywhere in any document, it
means that I am choosing to completely opt out of having
conformance checkers emit any error messages about missing
alternative text for any img elements in the document
o Analysis: while we disagree that this is poorly documented in
the spec (it seems spelled out pretty clearly), we agree that it
is certainly a surprising semantic for to have such a dramatic
effect on document conformance. We do believe this is new
information, as surprisingness to authors was not previously
raised. That being said, even if it were not rebutted, this
argument would not be strong enough by itself to have materially
changed the decision, but in combination with other points may
be worth considering.
Probably not sufficient in its current form, but potentially could be
improved:
*
inequitable rendering of graphical content
<http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/Issue31cMetaGenerator#The_.22generator_exception.22_results_in_inequitable_rendering_of_graphical_content>
o Summary: For web content to be independent of presentation, both
the src attribute and the alt attribute are necessary for
images. Omit the src attribute, and sighted users have no
content; Omit text alternatives, and non-sighted users have no
content.
o Analysis: This replaces prior statement of "complete structure"
and represents a notable improvement; that being said this is
(a) merely an assertion provided without evidence (citing the
actual problems caused with existing tools would be helpful),
and (b) likely is not a point that is in dispute.
*
The "generator exception" obviates the intent of the Validator
<http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/Issue31cMetaGenerator#The_.22generator_exception.22_obviates_the_intent_of_the_Validator>
o Summary: In the presence of the generator exception, the
validator suppresses error identification, and is thereby
stripped of its educative benefits. If content developers are
not aware that a problem (missing alternative text) exists, they
are not notified about it, nor do they have the opportunity to
rectify specific instances of missing alternative text.
o Analysis: Presents an argument based on presumed benefits and
instead of citing actual benefits.
*
Sufficient evidence of harm to end-users is implicit in arguments
supporting the generator exception
<http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/Issue31cMetaGenerator#Sufficient_evidence_of_harm_to_end-users_is_implicit_in_arguments_supporting_the_generator_exception>
o Summary: Inexplicably this was taken as non-evident despite
widespread understanding that alternative text is necessary to
ensure accessibility of images on the web for people who cannot see.
o Analysis: Explicit identification of how this would change even
one CMS's behavior would be much stronger than statements about
"implicit" assumptions of harm.
Not likely to be sufficient for reopening:
*
Fatal ambiguity in the specification
<http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/Issue31cMetaGenerator#The_specification_of_the_.22generator.22_value_is_deficient>
o Summary: spec does not define what a "hand-authored" page is,
and the definition of that term is not obvious
o Analysis: we agree the spec could be more explicit about what
counts as hand-authors. Pointing out the ambiguity is a new
point and arguably new information. However, it seems to us this
is an issue that could very well be raised separately as a bug.
Because of this, we do not believe it merits reopening the issue.
*
The "generator exception" inappropriately gives authoring tool
conformance considerations precedence over end-user requirements
<http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/Issue31cMetaGenerator#The_.22generator_exception.22_inappropriately_gives_authoring_tool_conformance_considerations_precedence_over_end-user_requirements>
o Summary: whether or not an author was prompted for alt does not
change the fact that the end-user requires it, and that the
generator exception will interfere with determining whether of
not the resulting document contains it.
o Analysis: not new information or a new argument. The points and
counterpoints here were made in the survey and considered in the
decision.
*
weighting of objections against the "generator exception" is
deficient
<http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/Issue31cMetaGenerator#The_weighting_of_objections_against_the_.22generator_exception.22_is_deficient>
o Summary: The primary criteria suggested by the HTML Co-Chairs to
explain the low weighting of objections to the generator
exception was repeated assertions of insufficient evidence; yet
inaccurate assertions regarding authoring production processes
on which the generator exception was originally based were
apparently accepted without evidence
o Analysis: This objection needs to cite specifics. Additionally,
this is not a matter of arithmetic: the goal of the process is
to identify the strongest objection. From the original decision:
+ Overall, there were many claimed disadvantages that flow
from the generator exception, ranging from weak to
moderately weak. They were generally unsupported by details
or concrete evidence. Even though the use case for omitting
alt when the generator mechanism is used was disputed and
only found to be a medium objection, it still outweighs
these claimed disadvantages, as they were all found to be
weak or moderately weak.
*
The "generator exception" breaks harmonization with other standards
and guidelines
<http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/Issue31cMetaGenerator#The_.22generator_exception.22_breaks_harmonization_with_other_standards_and_guidelines>
o Summary: This disagreement indicates a problem that cannot be
solved as the HTML Co-Chairs seem to suggest by updating
numerous other standards and guidelines, but that must rather be
solved by removing the "generator" exception in HTML5 that has
introduced this disharmonization.
o Analysis: If there is evidence on which the other standards have
been based that needs to be brought forward, then do so. Simply
citing a difference and making an assertion as to which is in
error is not sufficient. Also from the original decision:
+ it's clear that there are tools which do not follow ATAG in
this respect, and no evidence was provided that this would
change.
- Sam Ruby
Received on Wednesday, 16 May 2012 11:58:42 UTC