- From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 08:12:40 +0100
- To: "Laura Carlson" <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, "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, 22 Jan 2010 17:32:37 +0100, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. I don't think the question of what the user is doing is actually relevant to this point. I would therefore remove this paragraph, and the following techniques, leaving us with the reference.... >>> 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). Note that UAAG 2 also talks about this [1] >> 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." If the UAAG documentation doesn't provide sufficient ideas about how to guess what an image might represent in a given circumstance, I would suggest providing feedback to them suggesting they add more, rather than squeezing it into the hTML 5 spec. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/UAAG20/#principle-perceivable cheers Chaals -- Charles McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
Received on Sunday, 24 January 2010 07:13:50 UTC