- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 11:06:09 +0300
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>
On Aug 17, 2009, at 10:48, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > On Aug 17, 2009, at 12:30 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote: > >> On Aug 17, 2009, at 10:11, Henri Sivonen wrote: >> >>> * "After the end of an authoring session, the authoring tool does >>> not attempt to repair alternative content for non-text content >>> using text content that is equally available to user agents (e.g., >>> the filename is not used)." (Quoted from ATAG 2) >>> >>> * Autogenerated alt="image", alt="" and alt=" " violate the ATAG 2 >>> language quoted in the previous point. >>> >>> * Autogenerated alt="photo" might be spun not to violate it but >>> practically isn't materially different from alt="image". >>> >>> * Autogenerated role=presentation doesn't violate the ATAG 2 point >>> literally but does in spirit. >> >> >> * If @title is considered to function as a substitute for alt in >> the absence of alt, the same autogeneration considerations apply to >> @title as well. >> > > If that's so, then HTML5 is in conflict with ATAG2, as applied to > authoring tools. > > My interpretation, on studying ATAG2 more closely: I do not believe > the use of title to describe an image whose contents are unknown > would meet the ATAG2 definition of "alternative content": > > <http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG20/#def-Equivalent-Alternatives> > "Content that is used in place of other content that a person may > not be able to access. Alternative content fulfills essentially the > same function or purpose as the original content..." > > In such a case, the title does not have the "same function or > purpose as the original content", rather it is a best-effort attempt > to provide *something* given the lack of a proper alternative. > > ATAG2 only allows alternative content to be autogenerated if the > author is given the opportunity to accept, modify or reject. But it > doesn't have such a requirement for textual descriptions that are > not alternatives. > > I am not sure if this reasoning is in the spirit of ATAG2. For that > matter, I am not sure if the HTML5 approach will lead to good > accessibility outcomes compared to the alternatives. But that is my > reading of the letter of the relevant specs. It's quite possible that what I said about @title is a leap as far as actual ATAG 2 language goes. However, I would guess that putting autogenerated text in @title in order to make it non-empty isn't an attractive way to comply with the letter of specs for tool vendors, and I think autogenerating non-empty @titles wouldn't comply with the spirit of the specs anyway. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Monday, 17 August 2009 08:06:57 UTC