- From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
- Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 15:57:51 +0000
- To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Cc: James Craig <jcraig@apple.com>, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, WCAG WG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, "public-comments-wcag20@w3.org" <public-comments-wcag20@w3.org>, Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, kirsten@can-adapt.com
- Message-ID: <CAHu5OWYm8Amb4S-t4sVB+5vNKhD3uQyZSgroAzAJztSM7MT=6A@mail.gmail.com>
I'd like aria-labelledby added to the alternative attributes. On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 7:35 AM, Leif Halvard Silli < xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> wrote: > James Craig, Fri, 22 Nov 2013 15:47:44 -0800: > > +1 to NOT fail an accessibility verification test if <img> has no > > @alt but does a non-empty value for @aria-label or @title. > > > > There should still be a markup validation error, but not an > > accessibility error. > > I am in favor of James' solution, as it it is the closest to separate > the concerns. > > Clearly, it would be more robust to use @alt, so ideally one should get > more pluses (or A’s) for using @alt, though, > > Leif Halvard Silli > > > > On Nov 22, 2013, at 3:27 PM, 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 > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > >
Received on Wednesday, 27 November 2013 16:22:43 UTC