- From: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 07:21:05 +0000
- To: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, 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
- Message-ID: <CA+ri+V=SRhpdmKiB0Zncgms9U0_bed8qfHZ+m4iWMK8gv65eWQ@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Janina, comments inline -- Regards SteveF HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/> On 25 November 2013 02:12, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> wrote: > I'm sorry, but I have to raise an objection here ... > > Steven Faulkner writes: > > --initial twitter feedback from the community is strongly against > changing > > > this failure > > > > you quoted my quote of David from his original email on the subject. What I wrote was: > further feedback conforms this: > https://twitter.com/stevefaulkner/status/404169363403456512 > > And, what value does this add to the discussion in WCAG and on list > here? > Depends on whether we are interested in the thoughts people other than those on the list. > > > You mention "the community on Twitter." I guess, as I'm not part of that > community, I must wonder who else is missing? > It is a super-set of those on this list. It is not my community, it's a community that are interested in accessibility but do not have have the bandwidth or knowledge of, discussion occurring on public W3C lists. > Also, I note that many people responding in email here have required > well over 141 chars to express their views. How did you vully vet these > concerns in SMS length messages? For instance, can your community > explain "layering violations?" > When did we start looking down on +1 responses? I would suggest there are some useful insights from a wider set of people than represented here. > > Lastly, have we now shifted to determining W3C specifications by random > voting. > No one has suggested that we make a decision based on random voting, what input from those interested in accessibility, but not following the discussion on list, provides is a data point(s) to help inform the discussion going on here. > > Frankly, I'm unclear why you even took this discussion to Twitter. What > did you expect to gain and how are we to understand the value of any > results? What good does this do? What value does it add? > That depends on how much weight we put on input from outsiders. > > Janina > > > > > > further feedback conforms this: > > > > https://twitter.com/stevefaulkner/status/404169363403456512 > > > > -- > > > > Regards > > > > SteveF > > HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/> > > > > > > On 22 November 2013 23:27, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca> > wrote: > > > > > 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 Monday, 25 November 2013 07:22:15 UTC