- From: Aurélien Levy <aurelien.levy@temesis.com>
- Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 13:53:23 +0100
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
- Message-ID: <52934843.5070105@temesis.com>
Hi, on my opinion we must keep the F65 technique and change the test procedure and excpeted resultats to allow the use of aria-describedby if there isn't an alt attribut. I don't see the title attribut as a viable solution in regard of it's current support on the AT. Regards, Aurélien Levy > > No matter what property will be used, what's been mapped into the > platform accessibility api by the respective user agent matters, IMHO. > > With other words, when e.g. the MSAA accessible name (get_accName) > property is satisfied, all good, no matter WHO or WHAT does that. > > Therefore, I don't understand this discussion. One could see "alt" as > a specialization of "aria-label" if the latter has a broader scope > (and I think it has) , so, what's bad with this? > > With "title" the discussion is a bit non-symmetric, and perhaps > another story, because we do not have a "aria-description" property so > far. But again, if "aria-describedby allows for reuse of visual > content (descriptive text nodes), there are also valid use cases where > either of both properties are ok since they are both mapped again to > the MSAA accessible description (get_accDescription property. > > Regards > > Stefan > > *From:*Marco Zehe [mailto:mzehe@mozilla.com] > *Sent:* Montag, 25. November 2013 11:09 > *To:* Steve Faulkner > *Cc:* David MacDonald; HTML Accessibility Task Force; WCAG; > kirsten@can-adapt.com > *Subject:* Re: UNS: RE: UNS: WCAG considering amending F65 to NOT fail > missing ALT text if title or aria-label is present > > Hi all! > > One problem I see here is the fact that we are no longer dealing with > sole images provided by the img tag alone. Another now common source > of missing alternative text for images is when context, or even > interactable controls, are provided via CSS background images. In > HTML, these are merely referenced by a CSS class name or similar, and > are not on image tags, but on something as simple as a span or even b > or i. Yes, I have seen all of these in the wild. > > Those images need alternative text to be accessible, too, but there is > no alt attribute for these. The only way to make these accessible is > via aria-label or aria-labelledby. > > So while it is correct that the proper way for an image tag to provide > alt text is via the alt attribute, for other images this technique > does not apply, and needs aria-label or aria-labelledby. And while I, > in principle, agree with Steve and others that alt should be > paramount, I also see the fact that we have to teach two different > techniques to web developers for things that are not so dissimilar in > principle. > > I am torn, and I haven't made a final decision yet whether the > requirement should be loosened. The part of me saying "use native over > ARIA wherever possible" says "yes", the part that teaches > accessibility to web developers almost on a daily basis says "loosen > it so they can have a common technique and not remember two different > things for similar concepts". > > Marco > > On Nov 25, 2013, at 9:31 AM, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com > <mailto: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 > <mailto: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 <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 > <http://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 > <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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 > <mailto: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 > <mailto: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 > <mailto:david100@sympatico.ca>>, "HTML Accessibility Task Force" > <public-html-a11y@w3.org <mailto:public-html-a11y@w3.org>>, "WCAG WG" > <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org <mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>, > public-comments-wcag20@w3.org <mailto:public-comments-wcag20@w3.org>, > "Gregg Vanderheiden" <gv@trace.wisc.edu <mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu>>, > kirsten@can-adapt.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <tel:613.235.4902> > > > > > http://ca.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100 > > > > > www.Can-Adapt.com <http://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> > <tel:%2B1.443.300.2200> > > > > sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net > <mailto:sip%3Ajanina@asterisk.rednote.net> > <mailto:sip%3Ajanina@asterisk.rednote.net > <mailto:sip%253Ajanina@asterisk.rednote.net>> > > > > Email: janina@rednote.net <mailto:janina@rednote.net> > > > > > > > > Linux Foundation Fellow > > > > Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup: http://a11y.org > <http://a11y.org/> > > > > > > > > The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility > > Initiative (WAI) > > > > Chair, Protocols & Formats http://www.w3.org/wai/pf > <http://www.w3.org/wai/pf> > > > > Indie UI http://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > 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 <mailto:janina@rednote.net> > > Linux Foundation Fellow > Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup: http://a11y.org > <http://a11y.org/> > > The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) > Chair, Protocols & Formats http://www.w3.org/wai/pf > <http://www.w3.org/wai/pf> > Indie UI http://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/ > -- Aurélien Levy ---- Temesis
Received on Monday, 25 November 2013 12:53:53 UTC