- From: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 10:15:21 +0000
- To: Sailesh Panchang <spanchang02@yahoo.com>
- Cc: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, WCAG WG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, public-comments-wcag20@w3.org, Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
- Message-ID: <CA+ri+V=O9vm2e-Pg=tKBnFVR_chUs3JESEK-0=y2PvX-ixDm_g@mail.gmail.com>
Hi sailesh, what are you saying here? that you disagree with making it OK to use aria-label etc in place of alt on an image? http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2013Nov/0052.html if so then we are in aggreement -- Regards SteveF HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/> On 24 November 2013 03:08, Sailesh Panchang <spanchang02@yahoo.com> wrote: > Hello Steve, > > 1. Some advance the text alternative computation logic in the ARIA specs > as the chief motivation for attributes other than the alt for images, > specifically the aria-labelledby and title. > I find it difficult to accept that viewpoint for reasons noted in my > post: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2013OctDec/0115.html > > 2. As one might expect, developers rely on automated validation checkers > to validate pages as suggested by techniques G134, H88 to ensure > compliance with SC 4.1.1 (A). > While only a subset of validation rules apply for this SC, most developers > will not be able to or do not have bandwidth to do the fine tuning as > required for this SC and will simply aim for full validation as the intent > to the SC suggests that content which is 'created according to the rules > defined in the formal grammar for that technology' is a good thing to > ensure interoperability and robust browser/AT support. > So now if one says 'disregard validation errors for absence of alt > attribute, confusion will be rife. > Usefulness of the validation checkers too will be questioned. > Above all, it is not good for the WG to say'it is fine if one introduces > certain types of validation issues into the code'. > > Thanks and regards, > > Sailesh Panchang > > -------------------------------------------- > On Sat, 11/23/13, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote: > > Subject: Re: UNS: WCAG considering amending F65 to NOT fail missing ALT > text if title or aria-label is present > To: "David MacDonald" <david100@sympatico.ca>, "HTML Accessibility Task > Force" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, "WCAG WG" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, > public-comments-wcag20@w3.org, "Gregg Vanderheiden" <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, > kirsten@can-adapt.com > Date: Saturday, November 23, 2013, 3:39 AM > > Hi Janina, > Over time and due to experience and understanding, consensus > positions change. This document is a useful historical > reference, but does not represent the current (lack of) > consensus position on the issue. > > > > -- > > Regards > > SteveF > HTML > 5.1 > > > > > > On 22 November 2013 > 23:54, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> > wrote: > > > David: > > > > As a point of information, the wider WAI community has > already expressed > > a view on this. We did so back in 2009, after almost a year > of teleconferences nd > > email discussions by way of presenting a coherent approach > to the > > HTML-WG. > > > > The document we produced is entitled, "WAI CG Consensus > Resolutions on > > Text alternatives in HTML 5," and is available at: > > > > http://www.w3.org/2009/06/Text-Alternatives-in-HTML5.html > > > > So, while it's always good to revisit old thinking, it > should not be > > forgotten that we've already covered this ground, and > that we covered it > > quite extensively. > > > > Janina > > > > > > David MacDonald writes: > > > On behalf of the WCAG working group, I have an action > item to solicit > > > responses from the wider community regarding a proposed > amendment to WCAG > > > failure technique F65 regarding missing ALT. Currently; > if an <img> element > > > is missing from an ALT attribute the page fails WCAG SC > 1.1.1 Level A. Some > > > are proposing that we allow authors to use the > aria-label, aria-labelledby, > > > and title attributes INSTEAD of ALT. > > > > > > So under the amended failure technique NONE of the > following would fail > > > WCAG: > > > > > > <img src="../images/giraffe.jpg" > title="Giraffe grazing on tree branches"/> > > > > > > <img src="../images/giraffe.jpg" > aria-label="Giraffe grazing on tree > > > branches"/> > > > > > > <img src="../images/giraffe.jpg" > aria-labelledby="123"/> > > > <p id="123"> Giraffe grazing on tree > branches</p> > > > > > > As you can imagine there are strong opinions all around > on this so I > > > suggested we get a sense of what other groups such as > the HTML5 A11y TF and > > > PF think. > > > > > > Those in favour of the change provide the following > rational: > > > > > > --These alternatives on the img element work in > assistive technology > > > --The aria spec says these attributes should get an > accessible NAME in the > > > API > > > http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria/roles#textalternativecomputation > > > --They say it's easy to teach beginner programmers > to just always use an > > > aria label on everything, rather than requiring a label > on form fields and > > > alt on images > > > --They feel as a failure F65 is very strong if fails a > page for missing ALT, > > > especially if other things work, and they would like to > soften it to allow > > > other things that work. > > > --html 5 allows a <figure><legend> > combination instead of alt, so they feel > > > WCAG will have to change F65 anyway to allow a figure > with a legend, and > > > that helps open the door to this discussion > > > > > > Those in favour of the status quo (which fails missing > alt text) provide the > > > following rational: > > > > > > --aria-label, labelledby and title, are not really > suitable attributes for > > > img alternative text because they implies a label or > title, rather than an > > > alternate text, so it is not a semantic equivalent > > > --title is not well supported > > > --some feel that the aria spec is not in any way > suggesting these as > > > replacements to ALT. > > > --aria instructs authors to use native html where > possible, and they could > > > not come up with viable use cases of omitting alt text > > > --there are hundreds of millions of dollars invested in > current evaluation > > > tools, and methodologies, and this would represent a > major departure from > > > one of the most basic accessibility convention, that is > almost as old as the > > > web and is the "rock star" of accessibility > > > --it could cost a lot of money to change guidance to > developers etc..., and > > > muddy the waters on a very efficient current evaluation > mechanism > > > --when the figure/legend is supported by AT we can > amend F65 but that is a > > > different issue and the semantics of this construct are > OK for text > > > alternatives, rather than the label/labelledby/title > options > > > --it may cause some confidence problems to WCAG > legislation, because it > > > represents a strong loosening to a fundamental Success > Criteria, an > > > unnecessary change that doesn't help the cause of > accessibility, but just > > > complicates things > > > --ALT is better supported and the text appears when > images are turned off. > > > --initial twitter feedback from the community is > strongly against changing > > > this failure > > > > > > > > > There are probably other reasons on both sides which we > hope to hear ... but > > > these should start it off. Please give your opinions > and reasons. > > > > > > Current technique here: > > > http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-TECHS/F65.html > > > Proposed failure here (see test procedure) > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > David MacDonald > > > > > > CanAdapt Solutions Inc. > > > Tel: 613.235.4902 > > > http://ca.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100 > > > www.Can-Adapt.com > > > > > > Adapting the web to all users > > > Including those with > disabilities > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Janina Sajka, Phone: +1.443.300.2200 > > sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net > > Email: janina@rednote.net > > > > Linux Foundation Fellow > > Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup: http://a11y.org > > > > The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility > Initiative (WAI) > > Chair, Protocols & Formats http://www.w3.org/wai/pf > > Indie UI http://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/ > > > > > > > > >
Received on Sunday, 24 November 2013 10:16:30 UTC