Re: Propose removal or modification of the "Rorschach inkblot test" example and accompanying text.

On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 20:07:25 +0200, Ian Hickson <> wrote:

> On Sun, 13 Apr 2008, Steven Faulkner wrote:
>> Propose removal or modification of the "Rorschach inkblot test"
>> example and accompanying text as it is inconsistent with WCAG 1.0 and
>> WCAG 2.0. Reasoning for this provided in:
> Removing examples to hide contradictions is counter-productive. We should
> work to resolve the contradictions, not simply ignore them.

Possibly, but I don't think that is relevant in this case.

> In this particular case, the error appears to be in the WCAG drafts,  
> which have apparently not had the consequences of their advice
> thoroughly considered.

No, that doesn't seem to be a sound conclusion. The example in question  
has a "legend" (something that recent HTML5 drafts propose as a new use  
for an exsting element, and which has aparently not been considered in  
detail by WCAG2). The ability to provide a meaningful readable explanation  
of what the image is can be combined usefully with alt="" to eliminate a  
redundant bit of text (as explained in the example) while signalling that  
about all the information that can *usefully* be included *in the main  
text flow* has been included.



(the rest is included for completeness but I don't think it is directly  
relevant to the question at hand)

If there were a longdesc attribute (or equivalent functionality - see the  
discussion around ISSUE-30 for more) then it might usefully point to the  
bit of the page, or place somewhere else, that gives further information  
about the particular inkblot without filling the main page with what is  
essentially a side question that can in this case be answered by reference  
to existing information - is hardly a sterling  
example and includes lots of extraneous stuff and seems pretty biased to  
boot, but it is easy to find and gives a little more information. is not much more useful, but  
more fun. Or I could do more than take the first couple of search results  
that appealed to me and do something useful. Or not...)

> Thus, new examples (and text for how to
> handle them) should be added to WCAG, rather than removing examples
> from the HTML5 draft.

That would be sensible, were the example in question better in the first  

> Henri described the real problem in detail here:

Err, which real problem? This is a lot of reading, but I don't see how it  
bears on the question of whether the particular example in the draft is  
good as written, should be changed (my personal preference) or removed.

> We should work with the WAI to address the real problem, directing our
> advocacy efforts directly at the people providing images without
> alternative text, if we want to have any real useful effect on the Web's
> acessibility for blind users.

Without being terribly concerned about blind people, for the sake of the  
argument, I think there are more important and effective places to direct  
our arguments - see the priority of constituencies principle.

Charles McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
     je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk   Try Opera 9.5:

Received on Monday, 14 April 2008 09:34:25 UTC