- From: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 10:22:38 +0100
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <55687cf80908310222v6a817c1dj982b5f4224a4fc53@mail.gmail.com>
hi ian, >WCAG2 gives very little advice regarding alternative text, at least an >order of magnitude less than HTML5 itself does. this statement is demonstrably false: this is a list of the current advisory techniques provided in the WCAG 2.0 advisory documents. Situation A: If a short description can serve the same purpose and present the same information as the non-text content: 1. G94: Providing short text alternative for non-text content that serves the same purpose and presents the same information as the non-text content<http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20081211/G94>using a *short* text alternative technique listed below Situation B: If a short description can *not* serve the same purpose and present the same information as the non-text content (e.g. a chart or diagram): 1. G95: Providing short text alternatives that provide a brief description of the non-text content<http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20081211/G95>using a *short* text alternative technique listed below *AND* one of the following techniques for *long* description: - G92: Providing long description for non-text content that serves the same purpose and presents the same information<http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20081211/G92>using a *long* text alternative technique listed below - G74: Providing a long description in text near the non-text content, with a reference to the location of the long description in the short description <http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20081211/G74> - G73: Providing a long description in another location with a link to it that is immediately adjacent to the non-text content<http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20081211/G73> Situation C: If non-text content is a control or accepts user input: 1. G82: Providing a text alternative that identifies the purpose of the non-text content<http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20081211/G82>using a *short* text alternative technique listed below Situation E: If non-text content is a CAPTCHA: 1. G143: Providing a text alternative that describes the purpose of the CAPTCHA <http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20081211/G143> *AND* G144: Ensuring that the Web Page contains another CAPTCHA serving the same purpose using a different modality<http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20081211/G144> Situation F: If the non-text content should be ignored by assistive technology: 1. Implementing or marking the non-text content so that it will be ignored by assistive technology using one of the technology-specific techniques listed below - H67: Using null alt text and no title attribute on img elements for images that AT should ignore<http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20081211/H67>(HTML) - C9: Using CSS to include decorative images<http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20081211/C9>(CSS) *Short* text alternative techniques for use in sufficient techniques above 1. H36: Using alt attributes on images used as submit buttons<http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20081211/H36>(HTML) 2. H2: Combining adjacent image and text links for the same resource<http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20081211/H2>(HTML) 3. H37: Using alt attributes on img elements<http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20081211/H37>(HTML) 4. H35: Providing text alternatives on applet elements <http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20081211/H35> (HTML) 5. H53: Using the body of the object element<http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20081211/H53>(HTML) 6. H24: Providing text alternatives for the area elements of image maps <http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20081211/H24> (HTML) 7. H86: Providing text alternatives for ASCII art, emoticons, and leetspeak<http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20081211/H86>(HTML) 8. H30: Providing link text that describes the purpose of a link for anchor elements <http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20081211/H30>(HTML) *Note: *See * Understanding Success Criterion 2.4.4 Link Purpose (In Context)<http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/quickref/#navigation-mechanisms-refs> *. 9. G196: Using a text alternative on one item within a group of images that describes all items in the group<http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20081211/G196> - F30: Failure of Success Criterion 1.1.1 and 1.2.1 due to using text alternatives that are not alternatives (e.g. filenames or placeholder text)<http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20081211/F30> - F20: Failure of Success Criterion 1.1.1 and 4.1.2 due to not updating text alternatives when changes to non-text content occur<http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20081211/F20> - F3: Failure of Success Criterion 1.1.1 due to using CSS to include images that convey important information<http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20081211/F3> - F39: Failure of Success Criterion 1.1.1 due to providing a text alternative that is not null. (e.g. alt="spacer" or alt="image") for images that should be ignored by assistive technology<http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20081211/F39> - F38: Failure of Success Criterion 1.1.1 due to omitting the alt-attribute for non-text content used for decorative purposes only in HTML<http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20081211/F38> - F71: Failure of Success Criterion 1.1.1 due to using text look-alikes to represent text without providing a text alternative<http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20081211/F71> - F72: Failure of Success Criterion 1.1.1 due to using ASCII art without providing a text alternative<http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20081211/F72> - F65: Failure of Success Criterion 1.1.1 due to omitting the alt attribute on img elements, area elements, and input elements of type "image"<http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20081211/F65> - F67: Failure of Success Criterion 1.1.1 and 1.2.1 due to providing long description for non-text content that does not serve the same purpose or does not present the same information<http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20081211/F67> 2009/8/31 Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> > On Tue, 25 Aug 2009, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > > On Aug 24, 2009, at 10:24 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > > > 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've added references to these in the intro. > > > On Tue, 25 Aug 2009, Steven Faulkner wrote: > > > > 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 reasoning behind the request -- that is, the answer to the question > "why?". > > WCAG2 gives very little advice regarding alternative text, at least an > order of magnitude less than HTML5 itself does. Why would we suggest that > readers look at WCAG for advice on alternative text specifically? > > Should we also reference WCAG at every other relevant point? It doesn't > seem like that would be useful. We don't reference, say, CHARMOD > everywhere that it might be useful, or the AWWW document, or any number of > other informative resources or additional references that might help the > reader -- so why WCAG, and why specifically in this section? > > > > 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. > > As far as I can tell, WCAG2 refers only to HTML4 and XHTML1.x, so it's not > possible for HTML5 to contradict it. However, if there is any advice in > HTML5 that is demonstrably bad for accessibility, I would be very happy to > change it. > > > > I would obviously be pleased if the accessibility references that point > > authors and software develoeprs to the relevant specifications were > > prominent within the spec. > > I've added an intro section that references the WAI documents (amongst > others). > > > On Tue, 25 Aug 2009, Henri Sivonen wrote: > > On Aug 25, 2009, at 08:24, Ian Hickson wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > > > It's not about giving authors using WYSIWYG tools a license not to care > > about making their pages accessible. It is about acknowledging that when > > there's an abstraction layer that hides HTML syntax from the author, the > > syntax error-based feedback loop to the author doesn't work and instead > > the feedback is deflected by the tool developer. > > I don't follow. If the author isn't checking the syntax of the document, > and if the author is actively ignoring the tool's requests to make the > document valid, why would the author then complain about the document > being invalid? Or are you saying other people complain? I don't fully > understand the situation you are describing. > > > > The problem being solved is removing the incentive not to conform to > > ATAG 2 in order to perform the deflection. (The tool vendor can't > > enforce WCAG 2 compliance of the tool users.) > > (I don't think WCAG 2 need be invoked here -- as far as I can tell, HTML5 > itself has the relevant requirements too.) > > > > The right place to for software to complain at users of WYSIWYG tools > > about lack of accessibility is the WYSIWYG tool complaining at the user. > > A validator is the right place to complain at authors who don't use > > WYSIWYG editor-like abstraction layers between them and HTML syntax. > > Agreed. So why does it matter what the validator says to WYSIWYG tool > users? > > -- > 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
Received on Monday, 31 August 2009 09:23:25 UTC