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

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

From: Adrian Roselli <Roselli@algonquinstudios.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 18:32:23 +0000
To: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
CC: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, 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" <public-comments-wcag20@w3.org>, Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, "kirsten@can-adapt.com" <kirsten@can-adapt.com>
Message-ID: <0CB063710346B446A5B5DC305BF8EA3E2DECD74B@Ex2010MBX.development.algonquinstudios.com>
> From: Janina Sajka [mailto:janina@rednote.net]
> > As for my opinion, it is my understanding that ARIA was intended to cover
> the gaps where HTML didn't already have elements or features to enable
> accessibility. Moving to supplant an accessibility feature that is widely
> understood and broadly supported with one that most web developers don't
> understand seems like a step backward, especially when that specification
> should fall away in time.
> >
> This may have been true once, but it has not been true of ARIA for some
> time. Certainly a major impetus for the creation of ARIA was remedial,

Fair enough. You can remove my qualifier "especially when that specification should fall away in time" and replace it with " especially when that specification is not well-understood by developers."

In short, ARIA doesn't match the ubiquity and general developer understanding of @alt in this case.

> This takes me to the assumption we should clarify ...
> ARIA isn't just about html. Even as we debate what to do with F65, ARIA is
> actively being added to SVG2, and the implication of F65 should probably be
> considered in that wider context. I submit there's no reasonable
> transference of alt to SVG, though there is ARIA application.
> The general view among ARIA developers today is that ARIA is an overlay
> suitable for application to ml technology in general. So, though it's not clear
> to me where next we might apply ARIA once we've "fixed" HTML and SVG,I
> do hold some notions of how that might go, and it does correctly reflect
> current discussion when we find time to step away from today's details and
> into strategic planning for ARIA.Next.
> Most specifically, we expressly regard ARIA 1.1 as aimed at HTML 5.1, and
> also at SVG 2.0. We expect ARIA 1.1 to be a quick development cycle, with
> ARIA 2.0 as the next major step forward.

I think it's definitely worth clarification, so I did not trim it.
Received on Tuesday, 26 November 2013 18:32:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:07:55 UTC