- From: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 10:05:17 +0000
- To: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, WCAG WG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, kirsten@can-adapt.com
- Message-ID: <CA+ri+Vm7UNxk9LT0BBsPw2E=uVK5fM+wpFRaUOAp-6+LuXvAQQ@mail.gmail.com>
This http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20100504 is a useful detailed account of the various arguments for keeping a strict requirement on alt in HTML (for accessibility reasons). -- Regards SteveF HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/> On 25 November 2013 08:31, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Janina, > > I accept there's a technicality here regarding HTML >> validation that makes no judgement whatsoever about accessibility. > > > Accessibility advocates argued for 5+ years in the html wg against the > loosening of the requirements on alt in HTML. It was all about > accessibility. > > -- > > Regards > > SteveF > HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/> > > > On 25 November 2013 01:58, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> wrote: > >> I don't believe your analysis is correct. These are not the opposing >> viewpoints. They address separate concerns. While I don't claim to >> fully understand what the HTML-WG means by "layering violations," or why >> those >> are a concern, I accept there's a technicality here regarding HTML >> validation that makes no judgement whatsoever about accessibility. >> >> Perhaps you and others may have been perplexed by James Craig response >> to your first posting on this topic this past Friday? His was the first >> response to your post, and basically says the same as I understand what >> he wrote: >> >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2013Nov/0053.html >> >> PS: The 2009 WAI Guidance document was not a product of the HTML-A11Y >> Task Force as that TF had not yet been created. The document came from a >> special TF that was formed to address the specific question of what HTML >> should do regarding alternative text, short and long. The TF in which >> both you and I participate today was formed later in 2009. The TF that >> created the document cited disbanded once the document was accepted by >> the several WAI working groups and published. >> >> Janina >> >> David MacDonald writes: >> > I have no desire to open an old debate. But unless I’ve missed >> something HTML5 A11y TF 2009 resolution and a 2013 A11Y bug response seem >> to be in conflict.... >> > >> > http://www.w3.org/2009/06/Text-Alternatives-in-HTML5.html >> > >> > allows aria-labelledby as secondary... >> > >> > >> > >> > A bug against HTML5 seems to have the A11Y TF taking the opposite >> position. Unless I’ve missed something. >> > >> > <https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6496> >> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6496 >> > >> > >> > >> > I am willing to go back to WCAG with either response ... I just want to >> know where the task force is ... if it is not important to the TF, I can go >> back with that also. >> > >> > >> > >> > If possible I would like WCAG and HTML5 to be consistent with each >> other. >> > >> > >> > >> > Cheers, >> > >> > David MacDonald >> > >> > >> > >> > CanAdapt Solutions Inc. >> > >> > Tel: 613.235.4902 >> > >> > <http://ca.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100> >> http://ca.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100 >> > >> > <http://www.can-adapt.com/> www.Can-Adapt.com >> > >> > >> > >> > Adapting the web to all users >> > >> > Including those with disabilities >> > >> > >> > >> > This e-mail originates from CanAdapt Solutions Inc. Any distribution, >> use or copying of this e-mail or the information it contains by other than >> the intended recipient(s) is unauthorized. If you are not the intended >> recipient, please notify me at the telephone number shown above or by >> return e-mail and delete this communication and any copy immediately. Thank >> you. >> > >> > >> > >> > Le présent courriel a été expédié par CanAdapt Solutions Inc. Toute >> distribution, utilisation ou reproduction du courriel ou des renseignements >> qui s'y trouvent par une personne autre que son destinataire prévu est >> interdite. Si vous avez reçu le message par erreur, veuillez m'en aviser >> par téléphone (au numéro précité) ou par courriel, puis supprimer sans >> délai la version originale de la communication ainsi que toutes ses copies. >> Je vous remercie de votre collaboration. >> > >> > >> > >> > From: Sailesh Panchang [mailto:spanchang02@yahoo.com] >> > Sent: November 24, 2013 10:23 AM >> > To: Steve Faulkner >> > Cc: HTML Accessibility Task Force; WCAG WG; >> public-comments-wcag20@w3.org; Gregg Vanderheiden; Janina Sajka >> > Subject: Re: UNS: WCAG considering amending F65 to NOT fail missing ALT >> text if title or aria-label is present >> > >> > >> > >> > 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 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/> >> > >> > >> > >> > 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 <tel:%2B1.443.300.2200> >> > >> > sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net <mailto: >> sip%3Ajanina@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/ >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> -- >> >> 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 Monday, 25 November 2013 10:06:32 UTC