W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2013

Re: Minutes for October 22 meeting

From: Sailesh Panchang <spanchang02@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 19:47:19 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <1382842039.97582.YahooMailBasic@web125005.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
To: "WCAG \(w3c-wai-gl@w3.org\)" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
Hello Joshue,
My main question is:
how does someone say this technique is invalid / cannot be   sufficient when 
- An h-tag is valid in HTML 4.01 and in a TD cell of an HTML5 table
- It helps users and developers and is AT supported.

If I interpret David MacDonald's emails and notings,  I believe he seems to  see the value in it too
http://davidmacd.com/test/sailesh-table-test.html
I believe there are more who consider this to be a very pragmatic approach.

The WCAG-WG inserts a sentence  saying 'even though the absence of an alt attribute on an image is invalid, we deem it is alright if one wants to use an aria-labelledby on a static image to convey text alternative'. Absence of an alt attribute as a failure as per WCAG1, S508 and WCAG2 F38 / F65. All tools and accessibility practitioners call this out as a failure.  
A static image is not a rich element for which ARIA is intended.
The use of a title attribute is deemed sufficient despite  user agent issues noted and lack of keyboard support or other techniques are deemed sufficient even  when a single AT like JAWS supports it.
And the techniques doc documents that  an SC can be met by other means  too ... I assume basically because all techniques cannot be documented for practical reasons.
I did see the discussion and notings in minutes of  Oct 22
http://www.w3.org/2013/10/22-wai-wcag-minutes.html
The minutes disregarded  the  fact that this complex table has a summary attribute  which explains the  ttable's structure which I highlighted is past emails is a critical part of the suggested technique.
So I am really  really lost in  trying to understand the motivation behind the reasoning for not considering the use of h-tags as a sufficient in certain situations as documented.
Code that is not valid gets a special note, saying, it is not important but we bless this technique as valid. And things that is valid, works with AT, helps users and developers and promotes accessibility is not deemed sufficient?
So please document  how you decide something is sufficient even though not valid. Without this, the  response as documented in the minutes is incomplete and unacceptable.   
There is discussion and documentation that Joshue sent me  which indicates that many disagree with HTML5 requirement that headers attribute of a data cell should only reference TH cells and not TD cells when HTML4.01 recognizes this reality.   
HTML5 table specs itself clearly states that user agents should render  the non-conforming (as per HTML5) summary attribute. In other words, the specs concede that deprecating the summary attribute may not be the most optimal route!  ... especially as the alternatives are not supported well by browser-AT combinations  even in the Fall of 2013.
As of today, HTML5 is not a recommendation. 
WCAG2 SC 4.1.1  does not fail use of  deprecated attributes. 

Thanks,
Sailesh Panchang
  
--------------------------------------------
On Fri, 10/25/13, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com> wrote:

 Subject: Minutes for October 22 meeting
 To: "WCAG (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org)" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
 Date: Friday, October 25, 2013, 1:28 PM
 
 http://www.w3.org/2013/10/22-wai-wcag-minutes.html  Sorry for the delay in sending
 out.  Thanks,AWK  Andrew
 KirkpatrickGroup Product
 Manager, AccessibilityAdobe Systems
   akirkpat@adobe.comhttp://twitter.com/awkawkhttp://blogs.adobe.com/accessibility
  
Received on Sunday, 27 October 2013 02:47:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:32:54 UTC