- From: Sailesh Panchang <spanchang02@yahoo.com>
- Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 19:51:35 +0000
- To: james nurthen <james.nurthen@oracle.com>
- Cc: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, WCAG WG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, janina@rednote.net, GV@trace.wisc.edu
Hello James,
An image that does not allow any user interaction is static Web content and not a user interface element covered by the text alternative computation logic in the ARIA specs.
Else surely the authors of the specs would have included an example for such an inactive element to clarify the logic. plain image that has no associated interactivity is not what one might term as a"Rich Internet Application" ... the subject of the ARIA specs.
Regards,
Sailesh
--------------------------------------------
On Mon, 11/25/13, james nurthen <james.nurthen@oracle.com> wrote:
Subject: Re: UNS: RE: UNS: WCAG considering amending F65 to NOT fail missing ALT text if title or aria-label is present
To: "Sailesh Panchang" <spanchang02@yahoo.com>
Cc: "David MacDonald" <david100@sympatico.ca>, "Steve Faulkner" <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, "HTML Accessibility Task Force" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, "WCAG WG" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, janina@rednote.net, GV@trace.wisc.edu
Date: Monday, November 25, 2013, 1:04 PM
Sailesh,
When would images which are displayed to the user ever not
be user interface elements? I'm not sure I understand the
basis for this question.
regards,
James
On 11/25/2013 9:08 AM, Sailesh Panchang wrote:
> Hello All,
> Can anyone explain the technical basis for recognizing
aria-labelledby or title as suitable attributes for
rendering short text alternative for images that are not
UIE?
> The accessible name (and text alternative)
computation logic in ARIA specs [1] is meant only for
user interface elements.
> And to ensure this and prevent rist of over /
mis-interpretation, the ARIA specs defined the term
'accessible name' in the context of the ARIA specs
[2]. So elements (including plain images) that are not UIE
is out of scope of ARIA specs.
> Aria-labelledby / aria-label applies to UIE only, not
plain images. So the accessible name / text
alternative computation logic in the ARIA specs is
inapplicable to elements that are not UIE.
> - Aria attributes do not help users who do not use AT
but yet need text labels to identify images.
> - When aria-labelledby is used to label an image and
the image also has a non-empty alt (to ensure code is
valid), there is a big ristk that the alt is different from
aria-labelledby referenced text. This will distort how
different group of users identifies the image.
> So when one uses ARIA for purposes it is clearly
not intended to be used (as per the Intro to ARIA), it
is a big big dis-service to accessibility.
> This impacts accessibility for real users with
disabilities who depend on text identifiers for images as
suggested by
> Ramón Corominas in another response.
> So I suggest
> I. there should be no change to F65 as documented
currently.
> ii. there should be no ARIA technique promoting the use
of aria-labelledby or aria-label on non-UIE elements
including images.
>
> Thanks,
> Sailesh Panchang
> Reference:
> [1] Text alternative computation at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria/roles#textalternativecomputation
> [2] Definition of Accessible name:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria/terms#def_accessible_name
>
>
> --------------------------------------------
> On Mon, 11/25/13, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> Subject: Re: UNS: 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>,
"Steve Faulkner" <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>,
"HTML Accessibility Task Force" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>,
"WCAG WG" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>,
kirsten@can-adapt.com
> Date: Monday, November 25, 2013, 5:05
AM
> This http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20100504
> is a useful detailed account of the
various arguments for
> keeping a strict requirement on alt in
HTML (for
> accessibility reasons).
> --
> Regards
> SteveF
> HTML
> 5.1
> On
25 November 2013
> 08:31, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> Hi Janina,
> I accept
> there's a technicality here regarding
HTML
> validation that
> makes no judgement whatsoever about
> accessibility.
> Accessibility advocates argued for 5+
years
> in the html wg against the loosening
of the requirements on
> alt in HTML. It was all about
accessibility.
> --
> Regards
> SteveF
> HTML
> 5.1
>
On 25 November 2013 01:58,
> Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
> wrote:
> I don't believe
your analysis is correct. These are not
> the opposing
> viewpoints. They address
separate concerns. While I
> don't claim to
> fully understand what the
HTML-WG means by "layering
> violations," or why those
> are a concern, I accept there's
a technicality here
> regarding HTML
> validation that makes no
judgement whatsoever about
> accessibility.
> Perhaps you and
others may have been perplexed by James
> Craig response
> to your first posting on this
topic this past Friday? His
> was the first
> response to your post, and
basically says the same as I
> understand what
> he wrote:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2013Nov/0053.html
> PS: The 2009 WAI
Guidance document was not a product of the
> HTML-A11Y
> Task Force as that TF had not
yet been created. The document
> came from a
> special TF that was formed to
address the specific question
> of what HTML
> should do regarding alternative
text, short and long. The TF
> in which
> both you and I participate
today was formed later in 2009.
> The TF that
> created the document cited
disbanded once the document was
> accepted by
> the several WAI working groups
and published.
> Janina
> David MacDonald
writes:
> > I have no desire to open
an old debate. But unless
> I’ve missed something HTML5 A11y TF
2009 resolution and a
> 2013 A11Y bug response seem to be in
conflict....
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/2009/06/Text-Alternatives-in-HTML5.html
> >
> > allows aria-labelledby as
secondary...
> >
> >
> >
> > A bug against HTML5 seems
to have the A11Y TF taking
> the opposite position. Unless I’ve
missed something.
> >
> > <https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6496>
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6496
> >
> >
> >
> > I am willing to go back to
WCAG with either response
> ... I just want to know where the task
force is ... if it is
> not important to the TF, I can go back
with that also.
> >
> >
> >
> > If possible I would like
WCAG and HTML5 to be
> consistent with each other.
> >
> >
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > David MacDonald
> >
> >
> >
> > CanAdapt Solutions Inc.
> >
> > Tel: 613.235.4902
> >
> > <http://ca.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
> http://ca.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100
> >
> > <http://www.can-adapt.com/>
> www.Can-Adapt.com
> >
> >
> >
> > Adapting
the web to all users
> >
> >
Including those with disabilities
> >
> >
> >
> > This e-mail originates
from CanAdapt Solutions Inc. Any
> distribution, use or copying of this
e-mail or the
> information it contains by other than
the intended
> recipient(s) is unauthorized. If you
are not the intended
> recipient, please notify me at the
telephone number shown
> above or by return e-mail and delete
this communication and
> any copy immediately. Thank you.
> >
> >
> >
> > Le présent courriel a
été expédié par CanAdapt
> Solutions Inc. Toute distribution,
utilisation ou
> reproduction du courriel ou des
renseignements qui s'y
> trouvent par une personne autre que
son destinataire prévu
> est interdite. Si vous avez reçu le
message par erreur,
> veuillez m'en aviser par téléphone
(au numéro
> précité) ou par courriel, puis
supprimer sans délai la
> version originale de la communication
ainsi que toutes ses
> copies. Je vous remercie de votre
collaboration.
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Sailesh Panchang
[mailto:spanchang02@yahoo.com]
> > Sent: November 24, 2013
10:23 AM
> > To: Steve Faulkner
> > Cc: HTML Accessibility
Task Force; WCAG WG; public-comments-wcag20@w3.org;
> Gregg Vanderheiden; Janina Sajka
> > Subject: Re: UNS: WCAG
considering amending F65 to NOT
> fail missing ALT text if title or
aria-label is present
> >
> >
> >
> > Hello Steve, I'm saying I
disagree with the use of
> ARIA for plain images that
are not user Interface
> elementsHello Steve, I'm saying I
disagree with the use
> of ARIA for plain images
that are not user Interface
> elements
> >
> > Sailesh---
> >
> > Sent from my iPad ...
Please pardon
> "dictapos" and typos ... <grin>
> >
> >
> > On Nov 24, 2013, at 5:15
AM, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > 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
> <tel:%2B1.443.300.2200>
> >
> >
sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net
> <mailto:sip%3Ajanina@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/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> --
> 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 20:09:06 UTC