- From: Al Gilman <Alfred.S.Gilman@ieee.org>
- Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 08:07:56 -0400
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, "Gregory J. Rosmaita" <oedipus@hicom.net>, wai-xtech@w3.org, public html for all <list@html4all.org>
On 11 Apr 2008, at 11:22 AM, Dan Connolly wrote: > > On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 09:23 +0100, Steven Faulkner wrote: >> Gregory, can you add this issue to the issue tracker. thanks. >> >> issue: IMG section of HTML5 draft contradicts WCAG 1 & WCAG 2 >> (draft). > > Are you sure you want this issue to be separate from issue 31? > > ISSUE-31 missing-alt Should img without alt ever be conforming > http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/31 ** on the process: I think that you can take my statement that "the editor has not addressed what we told you already" as authoritative. The rest of what comes below is personal input, not backed by Group review and consensus. ** on the product: Yes, on balance they should best be separated. They are related, but resolving one does not necessarily resolve the other. Either way. I think you might understand the separation if we say that the WCAG contradiction problem is a requirements issue and the empty-vs-missing-@alt issue is a design issue. In our original input we tried to refine the question. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Feb/0082.html WCAG2 is most helpful in understanding the difference. WCAG2 clearly requires some alternate, text content for things like the Rorschach test, and describes how that text differs from the common notion of an 'equivalent.' The requirements issue of when and what kind of alternate content is required can be resolved and still leave open how the required information is provided by the format. The glaring example is the <figure> construct which has more built-in information than simply an <img>. See also the "Name From" concept in the WAI-ARIA ontology. http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria/#Properties Again, this is a reiteration: By the continuity (minimize change) values of the HTML WG, it is the change that must demonstrate necessity. So far nobody has demonstrated the necessity of making @alt optional. Not changes from the HTML5 baseline, but changes from the testable assertions that accessibility checkers as implemented now are coded to check. That's what needs to bear the burden of proof. Although user issues are to be given some preference over toolsmith issues, the accessibility checker tools are still bona-fide stakeholders. Thrashing them is not to be done lightly. And, I predict, that WAI will suggest in the area of accessibility that the consumers have given the toolsmiths a proxy that ups the importance of this stakeholder group where these requirements are concerned. So the previous input concluded that the draft should be fixed to _keep_ it required until an alternate plan for providing the information required by WCAG is available, and there is agreement including the spokespeople for the accessibility interest that the gains from the changes are great enough to justify the pains. [or impasse, vote, etc -- but we're too young in the process to be thinking in those terms.] > It's straightforward to change the short description of an issue. > > [...] >> There has been no response from the HTML WG to the PF WG in >> regards to this. > > Right; the PF WG request is still pending... But see our earlier message cited above that the Editor seems not to have considered in his review of the discussion. >> It is requested that this issue remain open until: >> Consensus has been reached by the HTML WG on normative/informative >> statements within the HTML 5 spec regarding the alt and its uses >> or if >> consensus cannot be reached, the issue is brought to a formal vote. > > We don't current have technical support for the distinction > between "editor is done considering input so far" and "test > cases are done and the wg has decided the issue". > > I need to think some more about how to handle cases > where "editor is done considering input so far" and > the outcome should be reviewed by more than just the > HTML WG. Agreed. I'm not particularly aware of any group that has solved this well. Al >> [1]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/wai-xtech/2007Oct/0044.html >> [2]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Feb/0082.html >> [3] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/54 >> > -- > Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ > gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E > >
Received on Monday, 14 April 2008 12:08:38 UTC