Re: Request to Reconsider Alt Guidance Location

hi leif,

> May be. But if I don't know the other languages, then it is just a
> distractions. I don't need to read about ODF — or Word — if my focus on

I do not think this is what's being suggested,as an example:

the wcag techniques  provide technology specific techniques on how to
hide a decorative image:
all of which

for HTML
H67: Using null alt text and no title attribute on img elements for
images that AT should ignore

for Flash:
FLASH3: Marking objects in Flash so that they can be ignored by AT

PDF4: Hiding decorative images with the Artifact tag in PDF documents

C9: Using CSS to include decorative images

All of which are methods to conform to the normative requirement:
Success Criterion 1.1.1 (Non-text Content)

"Decoration, Formatting, Invisible: If non-text content is pure
decoration, is used only for visual formatting, or is not presented to
users, then it is implemented in a way that it can be ignored by
assistive technology."


On 25 February 2012 01:08, Leif Halvard Silli
<> wrote:
> Janina Sajka, Fri, 24 Feb 2012 17:34:20 -0500:
>> Leif Halvard Silli writes:
>> This document applies to everything.
> I agree that the Alt Techniques document could be applied outside HTML5.
>> The human side of the guidance it
>> provides does not differ. Only the lexical markup differs. It's not
>> practical to try and have documents for each technology, as the
>> explanations would be the same, and would constitute most of the text.
>> The lexical part is by far the smallest part.
> I don't think it quite makes sense to measure what is the longest — the
> syntax or the explanation of how to use it: If we remove the syntax,
> then I believe the Alt Technique text becomes nearly meaningless. In
> fact, below, you explain the usefulness of code examples.
>> Furthermore, it's helpful
>> to both authors and developers to have lexical examples for multiple
>> languages together in the same place when the author/developer is
>> already familiar with one ml, the parallel usage, presented in parallel,
>> will only aid comprehension.
> May be. But if I don't know the other languages, then it is just a
> distractions. I don't need to read about ODF — or Word — if my focus on
> HTML. Also, The task of this working group is only HTML. Further more,
> I think that the more we describe how to make 'the lexical examples'
> HTML, then the more it can be repurposed, in other specs for other
> formats. I would give the spec authors the task of seeing how the same
> principles applies to many formats - rather than give it to the spec
> readers.
>> Please consider the job from the human perspective to get a better sense
>> of this.
> By 'from the human perspective' you mean 'spec writers'? At any rate, I
> could certainly see a value, for some, of a document that took a
> document agnostic perspective. But for most readers, whether it is
> general or special, may have a lot to say about how they understand the
> text - and how authoritative they consider it to be.
> I keep coming back to ARIA 1.0: It is general enough. Still HTML5
> defines how to use it. In theory, HTML5 did not have to define a single
> thing — it could just have said: 'please read ARIA - everything ARIA
> says is permitted, you may do in HTML5'. Instead HTMl5 has defined how
> to use ARIA in HTML5 - and that is also in line with ARIA itself to do
> so.
> I don't understand this group should not be the right place for taking
> a similar approach to WCAG: Define what it means inside HTMl5.
> --
> Leif Halvard Silli

with regards

Steve Faulkner
Technical Director - TPG | |
HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives -
Web Accessibility Toolbar -

Received on Sunday, 26 February 2012 08:48:27 UTC