W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2013

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

From: james nurthen <james.nurthen@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 10:04:20 -0800
Message-ID: <52939124.8030609@oracle.com>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:32:54 UTC