- From: james nurthen <james.nurthen@oracle.com>
- Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 10:04:20 -0800
- To: Sailesh Panchang <spanchang02@yahoo.com>
- CC: 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>, janina@rednote.net, GV@trace.wisc.edu
Sailesh, When would images which are displayed to the user ever not be user interface elements? I'm not sure I understand the basis for this question. regards, James On 11/25/2013 9:08 AM, Sailesh Panchang wrote: > 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 18:06:02 UTC