- From: Sailesh Panchang <spanchang02@yahoo.com>
- Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 10:22:31 -0500
- To: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- Cc: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, WCAG WG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, "public-comments-wcag20@w3.org" <public-comments-wcag20@w3.org>, Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
- Message-Id: <2E60434D-0AD4-4B07-B956-95E92AB48BF8@yahoo.com>
Hello Steve, I'm saying I disagree with the use of ARIA for plain images that are not user Interface elementsHello Steve, I'm saying I disagree with the use of ARIA for plain images that are not user Interface elements Sailesh--- Sent from my iPad ... Please pardon "dictapos" and typos ... <grin> > On Nov 24, 2013, at 5:15 AM, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi sailesh, > > what are you saying here? > > that you disagree with making it OK to use aria-label etc in place of alt on an image? > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2013Nov/0052.html > > if so then we are in aggreement > > -- > > Regards > > SteveF > HTML 5.1 > > >> On 24 November 2013 03:08, Sailesh Panchang <spanchang02@yahoo.com> wrote: >> Hello Steve, >> >> 1. Some advance the text alternative computation logic in the ARIA specs as the chief motivation for attributes other than the alt for images, specifically the aria-labelledby and title. >> I find it difficult to accept that viewpoint for reasons noted in my post: >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2013OctDec/0115.html >> >> 2. As one might expect, developers rely on automated validation checkers to validate pages as suggested by techniques G134, H88 to ensure compliance with SC 4.1.1 (A). >> While only a subset of validation rules apply for this SC, most developers will not be able to or do not have bandwidth to do the fine tuning as required for this SC and will simply aim for full validation as the intent to the SC suggests that content which is 'created according to the rules defined in the formal grammar for that technology' is a good thing to ensure interoperability and robust browser/AT support. >> So now if one says 'disregard validation errors for absence of alt attribute, confusion will be rife. >> Usefulness of the validation checkers too will be questioned. >> Above all, it is not good for the WG to say'it is fine if one introduces certain types of validation issues into the code'. >> >> Thanks and regards, >> >> Sailesh Panchang >> >> -------------------------------------------- >> On Sat, 11/23/13, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Subject: Re: UNS: WCAG considering amending F65 to NOT fail missing ALT text if title or aria-label is present >> To: "David MacDonald" <david100@sympatico.ca>, "HTML Accessibility Task Force" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, "WCAG WG" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, public-comments-wcag20@w3.org, "Gregg Vanderheiden" <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, kirsten@can-adapt.com >> Date: Saturday, November 23, 2013, 3:39 AM >> >> Hi Janina, >> Over time and due to experience and understanding, consensus >> positions change. This document is a useful historical >> reference, but does not represent the current (lack of) >> consensus position on the issue. >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Regards >> >> SteveF >> HTML >> 5.1 >> >> >> >> >> >> On 22 November 2013 >> 23:54, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> >> wrote: >> >> >> David: >> >> >> >> As a point of information, the wider WAI community has >> already expressed >> >> a view on this. We did so back in 2009, after almost a year >> of teleconferences nd >> >> email discussions by way of presenting a coherent approach >> to the >> >> HTML-WG. >> >> >> >> The document we produced is entitled, "WAI CG Consensus >> Resolutions on >> >> Text alternatives in HTML 5," and is available at: >> >> >> >> http://www.w3.org/2009/06/Text-Alternatives-in-HTML5.html >> >> >> >> So, while it's always good to revisit old thinking, it >> should not be >> >> forgotten that we've already covered this ground, and >> that we covered it >> >> quite extensively. >> >> >> >> Janina >> >> >> >> >> >> David MacDonald writes: >> >> > On behalf of the WCAG working group, I have an action >> item to solicit >> >> > responses from the wider community regarding a proposed >> amendment to WCAG >> >> > failure technique F65 regarding missing ALT. Currently; >> if an <img> element >> >> > is missing from an ALT attribute the page fails WCAG SC >> 1.1.1 Level A. Some >> >> > are proposing that we allow authors to use the >> aria-label, aria-labelledby, >> >> > and title attributes INSTEAD of ALT. >> >> > >> >> > So under the amended failure technique NONE of the >> following would fail >> >> > WCAG: >> >> > >> >> > <img src="../images/giraffe.jpg" >> title="Giraffe grazing on tree branches"/> >> >> > >> >> > <img src="../images/giraffe.jpg" >> aria-label="Giraffe grazing on tree >> >> > branches"/> >> >> > >> >> > <img src="../images/giraffe.jpg" >> aria-labelledby="123"/> >> >> > <p id="123"> Giraffe grazing on tree >> branches</p> >> >> > >> >> > As you can imagine there are strong opinions all around >> on this so I >> >> > suggested we get a sense of what other groups such as >> the HTML5 A11y TF and >> >> > PF think. >> >> > >> >> > Those in favour of the change provide the following >> rational: >> >> > >> >> > --These alternatives on the img element work in >> assistive technology >> >> > --The aria spec says these attributes should get an >> accessible NAME in the >> >> > API >> >> > http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria/roles#textalternativecomputation >> >> > --They say it's easy to teach beginner programmers >> to just always use an >> >> > aria label on everything, rather than requiring a label >> on form fields and >> >> > alt on images >> >> > --They feel as a failure F65 is very strong if fails a >> page for missing ALT, >> >> > especially if other things work, and they would like to >> soften it to allow >> >> > other things that work. >> >> > --html 5 allows a <figure><legend> >> combination instead of alt, so they feel >> >> > WCAG will have to change F65 anyway to allow a figure >> with a legend, and >> >> > that helps open the door to this discussion >> >> > >> >> > Those in favour of the status quo (which fails missing >> alt text) provide the >> >> > following rational: >> >> > >> >> > --aria-label, labelledby and title, are not really >> suitable attributes for >> >> > img alternative text because they implies a label or >> title, rather than an >> >> > alternate text, so it is not a semantic equivalent >> >> > --title is not well supported >> >> > --some feel that the aria spec is not in any way >> suggesting these as >> >> > replacements to ALT. >> >> > --aria instructs authors to use native html where >> possible, and they could >> >> > not come up with viable use cases of omitting alt text >> >> > --there are hundreds of millions of dollars invested in >> current evaluation >> >> > tools, and methodologies, and this would represent a >> major departure from >> >> > one of the most basic accessibility convention, that is >> almost as old as the >> >> > web and is the "rock star" of accessibility >> >> > --it could cost a lot of money to change guidance to >> developers etc..., and >> >> > muddy the waters on a very efficient current evaluation >> mechanism >> >> > --when the figure/legend is supported by AT we can >> amend F65 but that is a >> >> > different issue and the semantics of this construct are >> OK for text >> >> > alternatives, rather than the label/labelledby/title >> options >> >> > --it may cause some confidence problems to WCAG >> legislation, because it >> >> > represents a strong loosening to a fundamental Success >> Criteria, an >> >> > unnecessary change that doesn't help the cause of >> accessibility, but just >> >> > complicates things >> >> > --ALT is better supported and the text appears when >> images are turned off. >> >> > --initial twitter feedback from the community is >> strongly against changing >> >> > this failure >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > There are probably other reasons on both sides which we >> hope to hear ... but >> >> > these should start it off. Please give your opinions >> and reasons. >> >> > >> >> > Current technique here: >> >> > http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-TECHS/F65.html >> >> > Proposed failure here (see test procedure) >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Cheers, >> >> > David MacDonald >> >> > >> >> > CanAdapt Solutions Inc. >> >> > Tel: 613.235.4902 >> >> > http://ca.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100 >> >> > www.Can-Adapt.com >> >> > >> >> > Adapting the web to all users >> >> > Including those with >> disabilities >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> Janina Sajka, Phone: +1.443.300.2200 >> >> sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net >> >> Email: janina@rednote.net >> >> >> >> Linux Foundation Fellow >> >> Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup: http://a11y.org >> >> >> >> The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility >> Initiative (WAI) >> >> Chair, Protocols & Formats http://www.w3.org/wai/pf >> >> Indie UI http://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/ >
Received on Sunday, 24 November 2013 15:23:23 UTC