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

hi Ian,

>I would be open to including references to documents that could help
>authors and implementors -- UAAG, ATAG, WCAG, UTR #36, CHARMOD, etc.
>Indeed, we already have a reference to CHARMOD and UNIVCHARDET. If there
>are other documents that would be helpful, I would be happy to link to
>them too. Steven, is this what you had in mind?
There is a difference between what I may have in mind and what
recommendation the WAI-CG consensus document contains. I do not quite
understand why but whenever the WAI document is referred to it is referred
to as "my document", it is not, it is a set of recommendations [1] from the
WAI co-ordination group [2]. and one way or another this and other feedback
from the WAI-CG will have to be processed and responded to by the HTML
working group as it lies in the path of last call.


In the WAI-CG consenus document there are 2 recommendations that I am
addressing in this email:
"We recommend

   - that HTML5 state that "For guidance on accessibility requirements for
   text alternatives authors should consult WCAG
2.0<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/>
   ."
   - and that HTML should not provide any guidance that conflicts with WCAG.
   "

The first request is unambiguous to me, can you tell me what needs to be
made clearer? The second request is ambiguous as the areas where the WAI-CG
considers that the content of the spec conflicts with WCAG has not been
detailed. The WAI groups are in the process of a full review of the HTML 5
specification and I understand that details of conflicts, if any, are
forthcoming.

My personal preference is that a reference in the section of the spec
relates to text alternatives be added using text similar in intent to that
quoted above. the link should point to a section in the HTML 5 that lists
and links to the W3C specifications relevant to authoring accessible
content, providing accessible authoring tools and accessible user agents.
This section would include brief explanations of how these
specifications are relevant to the HTML5 specification.

maciej wrote:
>Can't speak for Steven, but that sounds like a really good set of
references to me. I think the references should be somewhat more prominent
than in HTML4 >or SVG, maybe in the introduction instead of relegated to an
appendix.

I would obviously be pleased if the accessibility references that point
authors and software develoeprs to the relevant specifications were
prominent within the spec.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2009/06/Text-Alternatives-in-HTML5
[2] http://www.w3.org/WAI/CG/charter3.html

regards
stevef

2009/8/25 Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>

> On Wed, 19 Aug 2009, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> > Ian wrote:
> > > Steven, if you could describe for me the problem that exists in the
> > > HTML5 spec that your proposal solves, I would be more than happy to
> > > address said problem, and would be grateful for your proposal.
> > >
> > > Without a description of a problem, however, I do not intend to edit
> > > the spec on this topic.
> >
> > I believe Steven has now given much of the needed explanation.
>
> I've tried going through the e-mails on this thread again, but I really
> haven't been able to find a description of a problem that we're trying to
> solve here.
>
> Going through the cases you listed that you didn't list as cases that no
> longer were being advocated as reasons to change the spec:
>
> > C) title / sole-image-in-paragraph exceptions not allowed as exceptions
> > in the case of unknown image contents:
> >
> > Steve explained here that this is because title does not render like alt
> > with images disabled or in text-only browsers:
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0881.html
> >
> > Henri added that autogenerated title would possibly violate the spirit
> > of ATAG2:
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0852.html
> >
> > Jan Richards suggested a "missing" marker as a way to flag images with
> > deliberately omitted alt, so that autogenerated descriptive text would
> > not be necessary but conformance checkers could continue to flag errors.
> > Henri agreed this might be a viable way to resolve the seeming conflict
> > between HTML5 and ATAG2 requirements:
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0980.html
>
> I don't really understand what problem we're trying to solve here. Why
> would we give authors using WYSIWYG tools a license to not care about
> making their pages accessible? That seems backwards.
>
>
> > E) Requested reference to WCAG:
> >
> > Steve gave some explanation here and drew comparisons to HTML4 and SVG:
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0885.html
>
> I would be open to including references to documents that could help
> authors and implementors -- UAAG, ATAG, WCAG, UTR #36, CHARMOD, etc.
> Indeed, we already have a reference to CHARMOD and UNIVCHARDET. If there
> are other documents that would be helpful, I would be happy to link to
> them too. Steven, is this what you had in mind?
>
> --
> Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
> http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
> Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
>



-- 
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