Re: ALT vs. TITLE usage in WAI logo example

AG:: I am in full agreement with Alan's bottom line that there is no simple
formula that works in all cases, here.  On the other hand, there is a detail I
would like to offer another view on.  See AG:: below.

At 04:52 PM 2000-12-30 +0000, Alan J. Flavell wrote:
>On Fri, 29 Dec 2000, Al Gilman wrote:
>
>> At 09:25 AM 2000-12-29 -0500, Leonard R. Kasday wrote:
>> >Hmmm.  Speaking of small problems with the logo, presently the image has
>> >
>> >ALT="Level Double-A conformance icon, W3C-WAI Web Content Accessibility 
>> >Guidelines 1.0"
>> >
>> >Following the principle that ALT should be an equivalent for what the 
>> >sighted person sees, would it not be better to have
>> >
>> >ALT="W3C: WAI triple A, WCAG 1.0."
>
>When the icon is used for its purpose, I'd say that this is along the
>right lines as far as the information content of the ALT text is
>concerned, though it may have been pruned back too hard.
>
>My problem with the original is not that it might be too long, but
>that it makes what seems to me a pointless reference to a graphical
>token (the icon) rather than to the factual situation (AA-conformance
>etc.) that is the central point of the action here.
>
>Unless the token were genuinely essential (hypothetically: "no
>accessibility claims are genuine without the authorized W3C icon"),
>then calling attention to the icon rather than to the claim which it
>represents seems to me to be a pointless distraction for text-mode
>readers.

AG::

The consideration on another side, here, has to do with rhetorical
structure or
flow.  The point is that an icon is an encapsulated, atomic utterance.  It is
as separate from its environment as a sentence.  In presenting this in the
middle of an audio stream where the basic premise is fluent speech, the
highest
and best representation may need to do something to set this off, because
it is
not a connected piece of a narrative but a standalone mark or gesture.  It
is a
sentence.  Saying 'icon' or 'logo' in a phrase which is as equivalent to the
icon or logo as we can make it may not entirely be a misstep in this case.
The
point is that it is a minor 'exhibit' and not part of the text flow.  "WAI
logo" is an elliptical sentence which is short for the aside, "A copy of the
WAI logo appears here."  Somehow we may benefit from establishing that
set-off-ness in the audio stream.

One of the odd realities in a speech user interface is that the least words is
not always the best way to go.  If one can maintain fluency of diction, then
the speech can be followed at a high speed of rendering.  Any time one has to
stop, one loses an amount of time in which one could have played lots of more
words.  So the optimization goal is to say things concicely while maintaining
fluent diction to the point that the rhetorical structure can be comprehended
at speed.

That is my current working estimate of the criterion.

Al
>
>> >The longer description is an explanation that in principle is seen by 
>> >everyone, so it should be the TITLE
>> >
>> >TITLE="Level Double-A conformance icon, W3C-WAI Web Content Accessibility 
>> >Guidelines 1.0"
>
>This seems to fit my understanding of the appropriate usage of TITLE
>and ALT attributes.
>
>However, there isn't a formulaic answer to this question: it depends
>on context.  On a page whose purpose is to exhibit a selection of WAI
>icons and to discuss their appropriate usage, the optimal ALT text
>could be very different.  The page itself might not be AA-conformant,
>and it would be quite wrong to use, without an appropriate
>explanation, an ALT text that had been designed specifically for
>asserting that it was so.
>
>> AG:
>> 
>> I have to admit to a violent negative reaction to this suggestion.
>> 
>> Both of the above spellings for ALT text satisfy the sense of 'equivalent'
as
>> used in checkpoint 1.1. 
>
>One has to make up one's mind whether the intention is to supply the
>information, or to give the text-mode reader a running description of
>a visual presentation.
>
>I'm aware that some blind readers have taken the view that a web page
>is essentially visual and that they wish to be given a verbal
>description of that visual presentation.  For some subset of web
>pages, I concede that this is a reasonable description of the
>situation; but I suggest that it would be a mistake to extend this
>approach to all web pages - for many of which, a detailed account of
>its visual presentation would be pointless, irrelevant, and could
>seriously distract from the potentially complex information content
>for which the page had been made.
>
>As a sighted reader, I've commented from time to time that the radio
>can have better pictures than TV.  But this isn't because the radio
>drama is laboriously reading out the stage directions to us, which is
>effectively what seems to be happening in some unsatisfactory ALT
>texts.
>
>As a general principle and subject to appropriate exceptions, I would
>much rather make pages which adapt themselves gracefully to the
>browsing situation in which they find themselves, and do their
>respective best to convey their information content to readers in each
>kind of browsing situation, without the potential discourtesy of - in
>effect - saying "by rights you should be reading this visually on a
>graphical browser, rush off and get one right away".
>
>Sometimes you have no choice, if the information itself was
>essentially visual.  But that's no reason to turn everything into a
>visual experience, with only third-rate concessions for anyone else. I
>take it we all pretty-much agree on that principle, though, otherwise
>we wouldn't be here.
>
>> It is a loose equivalence and they both meet this
>> loose criterion.  It is an equivalence of sense; not of spelling.  And at
the
>> more superficial level that you are evaluating 'equivalence' in the above,
the
>> answer is _no_, the ALT should not be 'equivalent' to the visual
presentation
>> _in those terms_.  It should be _different_ in those terms so as to be both
a)
>> equivalent at the deeper level and b) effective in the alternative
>> presentation.  The ALT text as understood when heard should be
equivalent to
>> what the sighted user understands on seeing the visual logo.  "What the
>> sighted
>> user _sees_" is too medium-specific to be the base for equivalence
>> comparison. 
>> "What the sighted user _learns_" is closer.
>
>You are indeed looking for equivalent _information content_, as
>opposed to a description of a visual experience.
> 
>> The fact is that telegraphic diction such as exemplified by the suggested
>> alternative ALT above works in a visual environment where the user can
random
>> scan over the component elements, and does not work well in a serial pass
over
>> the content such as in synthetic speech.  The more expanded version is more
>> likely to be comprehensible when read aloud than is the series of cryptic
>> blurps.
>
>You're saying that ALT="W3C: WAI triple A, WCAG 1.0." , just standing
>there alone without context, is incomprehensible, is that the issue?  
>
>But I don't see how that shortcoming is remedied by providine what
>was, in effect, a description of a visual experience ("triple-A
>conformance icon" or whatever).  Again, one runs the risk of confusing
>the drama with the stage directions.
>
>ALT="This page conforms to W3C WAI triple A, WCAG 1.0." , perhaps?
>With whatever kind of delimiter or break which might be needed to
>offset it from any running text.
>
>best regards and season's greetings
>

Received on Saturday, 30 December 2000 14:51:05 UTC