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: Sailesh Panchang <spanchang02@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 11:57:31 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <1385409451.3426.YahooMailBasic@web125004.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
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

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