- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2013 16:02:49 +0100
- To: Kerstin Probiesch <k.probiesch@gmail.com>
- Cc: 'RichardWarren' <richard.warren@userite.com>, 'Marco Zehe' <mzehe@mozilla.com>, 'HTML Accessibility Task Force' <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, 'WCAG' <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Kerstin Probiesch, Fri, 29 Nov 2013 17:15:58 +0000: > Ive read the mails and I agree with Marco and Richard, that F65 should not > be softenend. Alt is compatible even with old AT and well established. I > dont see any reason why this failure should be softened. I think ”softened” is the wrong angle. The right angle IMO is: Have things (not) happened that needs to be taken account of? Answer IMO: Yes. E.g. F65 declares itself as being related to XHTML/HTML. And @alt is an attribute specific to XHTML/HTML. However, F65 was written before this @alt free XHTML/HTML construct was defined: <figure><img src=img ><figcaption>Lorem</figcaption></figure>. As for not happen: The focus on 'soften' seems to only have @alt in <img> in mind. But F65 is not only about @alt in <img>. F65 takes a general approach to @alt and does thus speak also about @alt in <area> and <input>. I don't know about <input>, but @alt in <area> is *not* a success story (bad support, last I checked - @title seems to work as good if not better than @alt). Leif H Silli > Kerstin > > Von: RichardWarren [mailto:richard.warren@userite.com] > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 27. November 2013 12:54 > An: Marco Zehe; Detlev Fischer > Cc: HTML Accessibility Task Force; WCAG; public-comments-wcag20@w3.org > Betreff: Re: WCAG considering amending F65 to NOT fail missing ALT text if > title or aria-label is present > > > > I fully agree with Marco, > > > >>> I now declare that I firmly stand with the opinion that F65 should NOT be > softened. >> > > > > Alt attributes are simple, clear, easy to use and understand, compatible > with accessibility software and tools. > > > > Richard > > > > From: Marco Zehe <mailto:mzehe@mozilla.com> > > Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 8:18 AM > > To: Detlev Fischer <mailto:detlev.fischer@testkreis.de> > > Cc: David MacDonald <mailto:david100@sympatico.ca> ; HTML Accessibility > Task Force <mailto:public-html-a11y@w3.org> ; WCAG > <mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> ; public-comments-wcag20@w3.org > > Subject: Re: WCAG considering amending F65 to NOT fail missing ALT text if > title or aria-label is present > > > > > > On Nov 26, 2013, at 9:53 PM, Detlev Fischer <detlev.fischer@testkreis.de> > wrote: > > > > > > The intended change of F65 is driven by the aim to publish more ARIA > Techniques to establish ARIA as part of the toolbox, hopefully to be picked > up by devs to make all sorts of fancy web stuff more accessible. I believe > that this will be seen as rightful aim by most - after all, we can't stop > the fancy stuff out there, we can only hope to provide the means to make it > accessible. If the ARIA Techniques help doing that, this also requires some > revisiting of Common Failures to even out the inconsistencies that Jared has > pointed out. (To be more precise, this is necessary if we stick to the rule > that finding a failure in the test of a Failure Technique will fail the SC > in all cases.) > > > > Hi all, > > > > one thing to consider is that, if a web developer isn't going to put alt on > an image, they're just as unlikely to put aria-label on it. There is a > bullet-proof way to make images accessible, which is backwards compatible > into the 90s. There simply is no reason to soften F65 in my opinion, by > allowing ARIA on an image. Alt text is established, and those familiar with > accessibility including ARIA are also familiar with alt text. > > > > I agree with janina's comment about ARIA not going away, but it should also > be not the catch-all solution for just anything. It has a specific purpose, > to bridge gaps, and that's what it is doing. And an img tag is nothing new, > nor is it something fancy, and there is an established way to make it > accessible. > > > > So despite my earlier concerns re CSS background images, I now declare that > I firmly stand with the opinion that F65 should NOT be softened. > > > > CSS background images and so forth are discussions for other types of > success criteria and deserve their own topic. > > > > Marco > > > > Richard Warren > Technical Manager > Website Auditing Limited (Userite) > http://www.website-accessibility.com > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Kerstin Probiesch - Freie Beraterin > > Barrierefreiheit, Social Media, Projektleitung > > Kantstraße 10/19 | 35039 Marburg > > Tel.: 06421 167002 > > E-Mail: mail@barrierefreie-informationskultur.de > > Web: http://www.barrierefreie-informationskultur.de > <http://www.barrierefreie-informationskultur.de/> > > XING: http://www.xing.com/profile/Kerstin_Probiesch > > > > > > >
Received on Sunday, 1 December 2013 15:03:23 UTC