- From: WCAG 2.0 Techniques Submission Form <nobody@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 16:37:18 +0000 (GMT)
- To: public-wcag2-techs@w3.org
Submitter's Name: Laura Carlson Submitter's Email: laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com Technique ID: UNKNOWN Short Name: Providing Text Alternatives for Purely Decorative Images Technique Category: HTML and XHTML Techniques Guideline Reference: text-equiv Success Criterion Reference: UNKNOWN Applicability: Applies to HTML UA Issues: None known Description: The objective of this technique is explain and demonstrate how to markup to markup purely decorative images so they can be ignored by assistive technology with a null alt attribute (alt="") . If an image isn't providing the user any informative content or enhancing greater understanding of the content, then it is appropriate for the alt text to be empty. Purely decorative images are visual enhancements, decorations or embellishments that provide no function or information beyond aesthetics to users who can view the images. They have no meaning in themselves and do not provide page content. Examples: * Spacers * Bullets * Box corners Example 1 Head: Any decorative image in a document Example 1 Description: <img src="decorative.png" alt=""> Resource 1 Title: Web Design References: Accessibility Resource 1 URI: http://www.d.umn.edu/itss/support/Training/Online/webdesign/accessibility.html#alt Related Techniques: H37 H67 C9 Test Procedure: 1. Check that alt attribute is present and is null Expected Result: #1 is true. Additional Notes: This technique is part of the HTMLWG's Action 54: First Draft http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/Action54AltAttribute If it is accepted by WCAG we hope to remove it from our document as stated in the second draft http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/Action54AltAttributeSecondDraft#head-f0bf2ebf9f3e1fa190974101c6b70700ff176772 The Action 54 first draft provides much non-normative guidance in the application of the ALT attribute, which may not be appropriate for inclusion in a markup language specification, and which moreover could be seen as usurping the role of WCAG 2.0 and its techniques documents. A format specification is not a tutorial. It would be very helpful if the Techniques for WCAG 2.0. could incorporate this information or a variation of it. Then the HTML5 spec could link to it. As PF has said, "WCAG WG is chartered to set Accessibility guidelines and HTML WG is not". http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Feb/0082.html Thank you, The HTMLWG Action 54 Team: Steven Faulkner Joshue O Connor Laura Carlson Peer reviewers: Gez Lemon Gregory Rosmaita No example 2 header was submitted! No example 2 description was submitted! No resource 2 title submitted! No resource 2 URI submitted! No test file 1 was submitted! No test file 1 pass/fail was submitted! No test file 2 was submitted! No test file 2 pass/fail was submitted! ------------------------------------------------ <technique id="UNKNOWN"> <short-name>Providing Text Alternatives for Purely Decorative Images</short-name> <applies-to> <guideline idref="text-equiv" /> <success-criterion idref="UNKNOWN" /> </applies-to> <applicability> Applies to HTML </applicability> <ua_issues> None known </ua_issues> <description> The objective of this technique is explain and demonstrate how to markup to markup purely decorative images so they can be ignored by assistive technology with a null alt attribute (alt="") . If an image isn't providing the user any informative content or enhancing greater understanding of the content, then it is appropriate for the alt text to be empty. Purely decorative images are visual enhancements, decorations or embellishments that provide no function or information beyond aesthetics to users who can view the images. They have no meaning in themselves and do not provide page content. Examples: * Spacers * Bullets * Box corners </description> <examples> <ex_head_1> Any decorative image in a document </ex_head_1> <ex_desc_1> <img src="decorative.png" alt=""> </ex_desc_1> <ex_head_2> </ex_head_2> <ex_desc_2> </ex_desc_2> </examples> <resources> <resources_title1> Web Design References: Accessibility </resources_title1> <resource_uri1> http://www.d.umn.edu/itss/support/Training/Online/webdesign/accessibility.html#alt </resource_uri1> <resources_title2> </resources_title2> <resource_uri2> </resource_uri2> </resources> <related_techniques> <related_technique> H37 </related_technique> <related_technique> H67 </related_technique> <related_technique> C9 </related_technique> </related_techniques> <tests> <procedure> 1. Check that alt attribute is present and is null </procedure> <expected_result> #1 is true. </expected_result> <test_file_1> </test_file_1> <pass_fail_1> </pass_fail_1> <test_file_2> </test_file_2> <pass_fail_2> </pass_fail_2> </tests> </technique> Additional Notes: This technique is part of the HTMLWG's Action 54: First Draft http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/Action54AltAttribute If it is accepted by WCAG we hope to remove it from our document as stated in the second draft http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/Action54AltAttributeSecondDraft#head-f0bf2ebf9f3e1fa190974101c6b70700ff176772 The Action 54 first draft provides much non-normative guidance in the application of the ALT attribute, which may not be appropriate for inclusion in a markup language specification, and which moreover could be seen as usurping the role of WCAG 2.0 and its techniques documents. A format specification is not a tutorial. It would be very helpful if the Techniques for WCAG 2.0. could incorporate this information or a variation of it. Then the HTML5 spec could link to it. As PF has said, "WCAG WG is chartered to set Accessibility guidelines and HTML WG is not". http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Feb/0082.html Thank you, The HTMLWG Action 54 Team: Steven Faulkner Joshue O Connor Laura Carlson Peer reviewers: Gez Lemon Gregory Rosmaita
Received on Wednesday, 4 June 2008 16:37:53 UTC