Re: feedback requested on WAI CG Consensus Resolutions on Text alternatives in HTML 5 document

On Aug 15, 2009, at 3:34 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:

>
> On Aug 15, 2009, at 3:18 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 15 Aug 2009, Steven Faulkner wrote:
>>>
>>> I don't understand what is confusing about my request, what I  
>>> asked for
>>> is feedback on the content of the 'Consensus Resolutions on Text
>>> alternatives in HTML 5' document.
>>>
>>> If you can see your way to providing that, it would be helpful.
>>
>> In order to review any technical proposal, I have to understand the
>> problem it is solving. I don't understand the problem that this  
>> proposal
>> is solving.
>
> From studying both documents, I believe the material differences  
> between Steve's document and the current spec text are:
>
> (1) The Consensus Resolutions document includes ARIA techniques  
> (@aria-labeledby and @role="presentation") for labeling an image,  
> the spec currently does not.
> (2) The Consensus Resolutions document does allow <figure> <legend>  
> like the spec, but it does not allow @title or a heading for an  
> image-only section to describe an image. The current spec allows  
> this, only in the case where the contents of the image are unknown.
> (3) The Consensus Resolutions document does not have the "private  
> communication" exception.
> (4) The Consensus Resolutions document includes @aria-describedby as  
> an choice for optional long descriptions.
> (5) The spec has much more extensive advice about what should go in  
> the alt attribute than the Consensus Resolutions, including common  
> particular cases such as images as link content, or CAPTCHAs.
> (6) The Consensus Resolutions proposal recommends an explicit  
> reference from HTML5 to WCAG 2.0.

I missed an important difference the first time around:

(7) The Consensus Resolutions document suggests that alt="" (empty  
alt) without role="presentation" on the same element should trigger a  
non-fatal validator warning that recommends adding role="presentation".


>
> Steve & Ian, do you think I have described the differences  
> accurately? Steve, could you clarify which of those differences are  
> important, and give the motivation? Ian, could you comment on which  
> of these differences would imply a worthwhile change to the spec,  
> perhaps after Steve explains the motivation?
>
> My personal impression is that the current spec satisfies all of the  
> "Principles underlying the advice below", other than the ARIA  
> techniques (which are pending integration of ARIA) and the explicit  
> reference to WCAG 2.0.
>
> Regards,
> Maciej
>
>

Received on Saturday, 15 August 2009 22:41:43 UTC