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

hi maciej, thanls for providing this fedback and analysis.
notes
The consensus document is not my document it is feedback/recomendations from
the following W3C WAI Working Groups on the HTML 5 spec: Authoring Tools
Working Group (AUWG) <http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/>, Protocols & Formats
Working Group (PFWG) <http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/>, User Agent Working Group
(UAWG) <http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/>, and Web Content (WCAG
WG)<http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/>.


in regards to:
(3) The Consensus Resolutions document does not have the "private
communication" exception.
and

(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.

the consensus document is not meant to be a replacement for current spec
text,  it contains recommendations for modifications and additions based on
a WAI review.

I have taken it upon myself to work an alternative version of the spec that
impacts on both of these parts, namely to move many of the examples to a
dedicated document dealing with text alternatives best practice [1] , but
this is not as a result of a recommendation to do so contained within the
WAI document.

I will respond further soonish


[1] http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/misc/HTML5/textalternatives.html

regards
steve

2009/8/15 Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>

>
> 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.
>
> 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
>
>


-- 
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