Re: Request to Reconsider ISSUE-80 Decision

Janina, Steve, A11Y TF, and others,

Due to the ongoing AC meeting, the Chairs will not be able to convene to give a formal reply on this reopen request for a couple of days.

In the meantime, I wanted to send my personal feedback for improving the new information parts of the submitted Change Proposal. Note: these are just my personal comments on possible ways to strengthen the reopen request. They are not vetted by my co-Chairs, nor are they mandatory demands, they are just suggestions.


--> New information: Browser vendors have not made a commitment to provide (input) device independent access to title attribute content

This is related to one of the types of new information requested. Specifically, what was requested is "Evidence that the number of implementations exposing title in an accessible way is decreasing, or that some existing implementations are unwilling or unable to expose it in an accessible way." The evidence presented shows that browser vendors are unwilling to publicly commit to offering more device-independent access to the title attribute. It would be more effective to have statements where browser vendors say on the record that they absolutely won't implement, or believe it is not possible to do.

(Browser vendor representatives are encouraged to clarify they intent.)


--> New information: title attribute semantics and usage is ambiguous

The crux of this argument:

> In order for the title attribute to be suitable in place of the alt, it's semnatics and implementation need provide clear differentiation for the end user, for AT users it does not. All browsers (except Safari on Mac, but the difference in mapping does not equate to the two being differentiated by VoiceOver) treat these 2 cases the same in regards to accessibility API mapping

The factual assertion here seems well established. But it's not clear why this is information relevant to the decision. It would improve the reopen request to explain why the title attribute's "semnatics and implementation need provide clear differentiation for the end user", and why this is relevant to the decision (as opposed to something that could be filed as a separate bug).

--> New information: Most Graphical browsers do not display title text when images are not displayed

This also seems to be factually correct. It would improve the reopen request to explain why this is relevant to the decision.

--> New information: decision promotes convergence of alt and title behaviors

This identifies a possible overlooked disadvantage of allowing missing alt to be conforming when title is present. It would be helpful to further explain the nature and severity of the problems that could be caused convergence of alt and title behaviors.

Hope this helps.

Regards,
Maciej


On May 14, 2011, at 7:20 PM, Janina Sajka wrote:

> As logged at http://www.w3.org/2011/05/12-html-a11y-minutes.html,
> the HTML-A11Y Task Force hereby requests expedited reconsideration of
> Issue-80 Title.
> 
> *RESOLUTION: Task Force supports Steve's reopened request and change
> proposal at http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/notitle and
> recommends that it be forwarded to the HTML WG*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Janina Sajka,	Phone:	+1.443.300.2200
> 		sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net
> 
> Chair, Open Accessibility	janina@a11y.org	
> Linux Foundation		http://a11y.org
> 
> Chair, Protocols & Formats
> Web Accessibility Initiative	http://www.w3.org/wai/pf
> World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 17 May 2011 21:01:26 UTC