- From: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 13:36:47 +0100
- To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <55687cf80908170536m22760db4x22d485b9520dd04b@mail.gmail.com>
hi henri, * "Authoring tools and markup generators must generate conforming documents. what current authoring tools stop the generation of invalid documents? how do you see this being enforced in the future? 2009/8/17 Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi> > On Aug 17, 2009, at 00:11, Leif Halvard Silli wrote: > > I agree that it should not insert role="presentation" by default. However, >> since we both agree with Consensus in that <img> without @role defaults to >> role="img", it could insert role="img". >> > > What problem would this solve? > > Tools do not need to ask "Do you want to insert an <img>?" They could offer >> choice between IMG@role=presentation and normal IMG. Tools should not bug >> users about lack of alternative text unless the <img> has a >> non-presentational role ... >> > > What kind of markup and UI do you envision for the case where in a future > HTML5-compliant version of Dreamweaver, the user creates a new document > (File: New), drags an image file to the document from the Finder and saves > the document? > > We should treat lack of @alt and empty alt="" as semantically identical. >> > > That's not how existing client software behaves. Previously, it has been > stated on the list that it takes a long time to upgrade the software. > > The Consensus Documents goes in that direction when it states that it >> doesn't mater if an <IMG> with role="presentation" has an empty alt="" or no >> alt at all. But it goes slightly in the opposite direction when it >> recommends that validators should say that an <IMG> with an empty alt="" but >> not @role should automatically get a role="presentation". >> > > My biggest concern with the proposed normative warning is that > role=presentation wouldn't be the path of least resistance for dismissing > the warning. Putting a space in the value of alt would be. > > On Aug 17, 2009, at 02:25, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > > If you're saying that authoring tools should produce missing (not empty) >> alt, without any of the alternatives suggested by HTML5 such as @title or >> <legend>, and that this should be conforming, then I believe you disagree >> with the current state of the HTML5 spec. >> > > Yes. I pointed out in my previous email that I disagree with the current > state of the HTML 5 spec. (I believe Hixie knew this, but for all-round > productivity reasons I didn't make a big deal about it on this mailing list > while the alt discussion was otherwise dormant.) > > The reason I disagree with it is that I haven't seen a credible expectation > of how a Dreamweaver-like product should implement the requirements of HTML5 > as drafted without failing to conform to ATAG 2 as drafted (or vice versa). > > Anyway, I think discussing what should be conforming before coming to > consensus on desirable authoring tool behavior will rathole this thread. > Therefore, instead of discussing my conclusions, I'd like to state my > premises and invite anyone who disagrees with any of my premises to come > forward. If it turns out that one of my premises is wrong, my conclusion is > most likely wrong. > > Here are my premises: > > * "Authoring tools and markup generators must generate conforming > documents." ("Authoring tools are exempt from the strict requirements of > using elements only for their specified purpose, but only to the extent that > authoring tools are not yet able to determine author intent." "In terms of > conformance checking, an editor is therefore required to output documents > that conform to the same extent that a conformance checker will verify.") > (Quoted from HTML 5.) > > * "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. > > * An HTML authoring tool should conform to both HTML 5 and ATAG 2. > > * In a GUI editor, the user should be able to insert and delete images and > section/figure headers/captions/legends independently of each other, because > gluing them together would violate long-standing GUI behavior expectations. > > * Most authors don't respond to prompts in a meaningful way. (Contrast > with ATAG 2 B.1.3 applicability notes.) > > * Dreamweaver and BlueGriffon-type products, Microsoft Word and > OpenOffice.org-type products (when exporting HTML) and Flickr and > Brightkite-type services are legitimate classes of services and products > that are within scope for HTML 5 and ATAG 2. > > Does anyone disagree with any of these points? > > On Aug 17, 2009, at 02:45, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > > (To be specific, I think the best option in this case that would be >> conforming to the current draft would be to put a title attribute on the >> image, giving the best information the authoring tool has available, even if >> it is a low-value description like "Photo 1 of 15".) >> > > The "1 of 15" part should be aria-posinset=1 aria-setsize=15. For the > remaining "Photo" part, see above. > > > -- > Henri Sivonen > hsivonen@iki.fi > http://hsivonen.iki.fi/ > > > > -- 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
Received on Monday, 17 August 2009 12:37:29 UTC