RE: UNS: RE: UNS: WCAG considering amending F65 to NOT fail missing ALT text if title or aria-label is present

OK.
I'll take a look.


From: Schnabel, Stefan [mailto:stefan.schnabel@sap.com]
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2013 10:12 AM
To: Hoffman, Allen; Marco Zehe; 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

There is work underway: http://www.w3.org/TR/html-aapi/

Regards
Stefan

From: Hoffman, Allen [mailto:allen.hoffman@hq.dhs.gov]
Sent: Montag, 25. November 2013 16:09
To: Schnabel, Stefan; Marco Zehe; 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

Howisthissupported in the browser specifications to be rendered?  Sounds like we would all do well to know what browsers are expected to so with the whole range of these items and see if they are similar enough or not.  Keep in mind, how many ways are we expecting such things to be tested moving forward-a requirement with 500 possible sufficient methods is nearly untestable in a meaningful way.


From: Schnabel, Stefan [mailto:stefan.schnabel@sap.com]
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2013 6:54 AM
To: Marco Zehe; Steve Faulkner
Cc: David MacDonald; HTML Accessibility Task Force; WCAG; kirsten@can-adapt.com<mailto: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

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<mailto: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
>
>          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
        Indie UI                        http://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/