- From: Sailesh Panchang <spanchang02@yahoo.com>
- Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 11:57:31 -0800 (PST)
- To: james nurthen <james.nurthen@oracle.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
James,
Just to be sure:
"Interface element that a computer user interacts with, and is also known as a control or
Widget."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical_user_interface_elements
Regards,
Sailesh
--------------------------------------------
On Mon, 11/25/13, james nurthen <james.nurthen@oracle.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: "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
Date: Monday, November 25, 2013, 1:04 PM
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 19:57:59 UTC