W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January 2010

Re: Discussion on Change Proposal for ISSUE-66

From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 10:32:37 -0600
Message-ID: <1c8dbcaa1001220832h64ff4846q3bfba346944139c0@mail.gmail.com>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, jimallan@tsbvi.edu, kelly.ford@microsoft.com
Cc: Matt May <mattmay@adobe.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, public-html-a11y@w3.org
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 9:25 AM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
> On Jan 22, 2010, at 2:52 AM, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
>> I've had a go at writing a proposal for some alternative spec text to resolve this issue.
>> ---
>> When the user is unable to make direct use of the image, e.g. due to a visual
>> disability or because they are using a text terminal with no graphics capabilities, user
>> agents may also provide the user with the ability to obtain any other information about
>> the image that may assist the user in understanding its content or purpose, utilising
>>  any available repair technique.
>> Such techniques may be based on information from any relevant source
>> including, but not limited to, the following suggestions:
>> * Obtaining the file name from the URL reference or HTTP headers
>>  supplied with the resource, such as the Content-Location or
>>  Content-Disposition header fields.
>> * Extracting human readable metadata embedded within the resource.
>>  e.g. EXIF, RDF or XMP.
>> * Referring to alternative text associated with another instance of the
>>  same resource on the page.
>> * Applying OCR techniques to recognise and extract textual content that
>>  is graphically represented on the image.
>> For more information, refer to the User Agent Accessibility Guidelines techniques
>> for repairing missing content ([UAAG10-TECHS], section 2.7).
>> ---
> After seeing it, I think it might read better without the list of
> specific techniques. They are neat ideas but it seems too much detail
> for something that really is just implementation advice. The first and
> last bits sound good to me, at least.

I agree, Maciej. But I'd cut it even more. Like Shelley said, it could
very well be confusing to authors and used as a loophole not to write
text alternatives [1].

If in fact anything is needed, I'd suggest simply using the last bit.
Maybe something like:

"For User Agent advice on techniques for repairing missing content
please refer to the User Agent Accessibility Guidelines."

And then ask the User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Working Group
(UAWG) which portion of the UAAG spec HTML5 should link to.

But If it is decided to list User Agent repair technique text in the spec

* It should be clearly noted that it is NOT an escape clause for
authors to get out of writing text alternatives.


* Any User Agent repair verbiage should be coordinated with User Agent
Accessibility Guidelines Working Group (UAWG). They are the domain
experts. It would need to be carefully worded so the two specs don't
get out of sync.

Jim Allan and Kelly Ford are Chairs of the User Agent working group
[2] and we are lucky enough to have them in the Accessibility Task
Force. Jim, and Kelly what would you recommend?

1. Leave out user agent repair text?
2. Link to UAAG?
3. List specific techniques in HTML5?


I don't think all of the messages from this discussion got posted to
the a11y list. The full thread of this discussion starts at:

Best Regards,

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jan/1130.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/wai-ua-members.html
Laura L. Carlson
Received on Friday, 22 January 2010 16:33:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:08 UTC