- From: Sailesh Panchang <spanchang02@yahoo.com>
- Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 09:08:25 -0800 (PST)
- 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>
- Cc: janina@rednote.net, GV@trace.wisc.edu
Hello All,
Can anyone explain the technical basis for recognizing aria-labelledby or title as suitable attributes for rendering short text alternative for images that are not UIE?
The accessible name (and text alternative) computation logic in ARIA specs [1] is meant only for user interface elements.
And to ensure this and prevent rist of over / mis-interpretation, the ARIA specs defined the term 'accessible name' in the context of the ARIA specs [2]. So elements (including plain images) that are not UIE is out of scope of ARIA specs.
Aria-labelledby / aria-label applies to UIE only, not plain images. So the accessible name / text alternative computation logic in the ARIA specs is inapplicable to elements that are not UIE.
- Aria attributes do not help users who do not use AT but yet need text labels to identify images.
- When aria-labelledby is used to label an image and the image also has a non-empty alt (to ensure code is valid), there is a big ristk that the alt is different from aria-labelledby referenced text. This will distort how different group of users identifies the image.
So when one uses ARIA for purposes it is clearly not intended to be used (as per the Intro to ARIA), it is a big big dis-service to accessibility.
This impacts accessibility for real users with disabilities who depend on text identifiers for images as suggested by
Ramón Corominas in another response.
So I suggest
I. there should be no change to F65 as documented currently.
ii. there should be no ARIA technique promoting the use of aria-labelledby or aria-label on non-UIE elements including images.
Thanks,
Sailesh Panchang
Reference:
[1] Text alternative computation at
http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria/roles#textalternativecomputation
[2] Definition of Accessible name:
http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria/terms#def_accessible_name
--------------------------------------------
On Mon, 11/25/13, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: Re: UNS: 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>, "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
Date: Monday, November 25, 2013, 5:05 AM
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
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
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 17:11:46 UTC