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

hi maciej,

>(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".
This suggestion is based on the desire to promote the use of
role="presentation" as a generic method of indicating an element should not
be mapped to an accessibility API, as implemented by a number of browsers
[2] . the use of alt="" does not do this (e.g in MSAA role="graphic"), but
has been used by a number of AT to hide images from the user by not
announcing the images presence.


[1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/aria/#presentation
[2] http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/aria-tests/ARIA-SafariaOperaIEFF.html

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

>
> 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
>>
>>
>>
>


-- 
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