- From: james nurthen <james.nurthen@oracle.com>
- Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 21:05:15 +0000
- 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
On 11/25/2013 11:48 AM, Sailesh Panchang wrote: > 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. Sailesh, Why do you say this? I agree that an image is not an "interactive user interface element" but it is a "user interface element" nonetheless. The ARIA spec covers more than simply interactive user interface elements. For example there are many document roles specified including that for an img role. I've contributed to the ARIA specs in the past. Unless it has changed course dramatically the spec, including the accessible name calculation, covers much more that just interactive elements. regards, James > 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 21:46:21 UTC