- From: David Poehlman <david.poehlman@handsontechnologeyes.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 17:40:51 -0400
- To: "Steven Faulkner" <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: <public-html@w3.org>, <wai-xtech@w3.org>
I'm not sure that this is a deffinition and I'm also not sure that what it says is substantially different than the formal deffinition except that it doesn't go as far and who is to say that the formal deffinition is correct anyway? Ian is actually supporting a longstanding view that the web needs to be transparent in whatever medium you are in whether visual, textual, auditory... In other words, I don't see a conflict. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steven Faulkner" <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> To: "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch> Cc: <public-html@w3.org>; <wai-xtech@w3.org> Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 5:30 PM Subject: Disparity between WCAG 2.0 and HTML5 editors definition of text alternative Ian, you asked for examples the HTML5 draft contradicts WCAG1/2 here is one you just provided yourself: steve faulkner wrote: > The Rorschach inkblot test example is covered in WCAG 2.0 [1] by the > following: > > "Sometimes content is primarily intended to create a specific sensory > experience that words cannot fully capture. Examples include a symphony > performance, works of visual art etc. For such content, text > alternatives at least identify the non-text content with a descriptive > label and where possible, some descriptive text. If the reason for > including the content in the page is known and can be described it is > helpful to include that information." > > [1] > http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20071211/text-equiv-all.html Ian hickson wrote: "I disagree with this advice; I think it is harmful as it confuses titles and captions with alternatives, and it removes the ability for an AT to distinguish images that can be replaced by text with no indication of the image's existence with images that are key to the content." It would appear that there is a disparity between what WCAG 2.0 considers a text alternative and what you consider a text alternative WCAG 2.0 definition:[http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#text-altdef] "Text alternative programmatically determined text that is used in place of non-text content, or text that is used in addition to non-text content and referred to from the programmatically determined text Example: An image of a chart is described in text in the paragraph after the chart. The short text-alternative for the chart indicates that a description follows. " Ian hickson's definition: [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Apr/0285.html] "The idea of alternative text is that you can substitute it for the image without saying that there was an image, and the experience should be equivalent." I don't believe (but I may be wrong) that you are in a position to enforce your own definition of what constitutes as a "text alternative" and use it to provide normative/informative statements about alt use in the HTML5 specification. I have previously brought this issue to the PF WG's attention [1] and am awaiting their advice. [1]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/wai-xtech/2008Mar/0041.html ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> Date: 11 Apr 2008 20:52 Subject: Re: several messages relating to the alt="" attribute To: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> Cc: public-html@w3.org On Fri, 11 Apr 2008, Steven Faulkner wrote: > > this is not acceptable: > > <figure> > <img src="r14.jpeg"> > <legend>Rorschach inkblot test #14</legend> > <figure> > > while this is: > > <figure> > <img src="r14.jpeg" alt="An abstract, ambiguous shape"> > <legend>Rorschach inkblot test #14</legend> > <figure> I disagree. I think "An abstract, ambiguous shape" is a fine title, but it's not alternative text. The idea of alternative text is that you can substitute it for the image without saying that there was an image, and the experience should be equivalent. For example: The <img src=cat.png alt=cat> sat on the <img src=mat.png alt=mat>. ...could be read as "The cat sat on the mat." and it would be fine. However, replacing an inkblot test with the text "an abstract, ambiguous shape" defeats the entire point of the test. The user knows full well what an inkblot test is, that's what the rest of the page says. The right thing is for the AT to indicate the presence of the image and try to provide a way for the user to investigate the image itself. Why is it not acceptable to omit the alt text? > The Rorschach inkblot test example is covered in WCAG 2.0 [1] by the > following: > > "Sometimes content is primarily intended to create a specific sensory > experience that words cannot fully capture. Examples include a symphony > performance, works of visual art etc. For such content, text > alternatives at least identify the non-text content with a descriptive > label and where possible, some descriptive text. If the reason for > including the content in the page is known and can be described it is > helpful to include that information." > > [1] > http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20071211/text-equiv-all.html I disagree with this advice; I think it is harmful as it confuses titles and captions with alternatives, and it removes the ability for an AT to distinguish images that can be replaced by text with no indication of the image's existence with images that are key to the content. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.' -- with regards Steve Faulkner Technical Director - TPG Europe Director - Web Accessibility Tools Consortium www.paciellogroup.com | www.wat-c.org Web Accessibility Toolbar - http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html
Received on Friday, 11 April 2008 21:41:32 UTC