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: Gregg Vanderheiden <GV@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 16:08:02 -0600
Cc: Marco Zehe <mzehe@mozilla.com>, Detlev Fischer <detlev.fischer@testkreis.de>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, GLWAI Guidelines WG org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-Id: <6176542C-B9AC-4D29-B82B-0C5356DF1007@trace.wisc.edu>
To: RichardWarren <richard.warren@userite.com>
Two comments

1) The Public Comments list -- is meant for the submission of comments to the working group -- not for discussion.  I removed it from this email -- and it should be removed from other chats/ discussions on a topic.  GL list is the list for discussion and working group members receive their email there.


2) Failures are not to encourage best practice - they are to document things that are always failures (and commonly done).   If something is not always a failure - then it should not be listed as one.   Failures are not softened or hardened.  They are binary.    If ARIA can ever be used to meet the SC then it would need to be added to the failure -- or the failure needs to be removed.     

Techniques need to be accessibility supported -- and ALT is the best bet now.   But best bet and ONLY way  are different.    And a failure based on one approach must mean that there IS NO other way to meet the SC.   


Gregg
--------------------------------------------------------
Gregg Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Director Trace R&D Center
Professor Industrial & Systems Engineering
and Biomedical Engineering University of Wisconsin-Madison
Technical Director - Cloud4all Project - http://Cloud4all.info
Co-Director, Raising the Floor - International - http://Raisingthefloor.org
and the Global Public Inclusive Infrastructure Project -  http://GPII.net

On Nov 27, 2013, at 5:54 AM, RichardWarren <richard.warren@userite.com> wrote:

> I fully agree with Marco,
>  
> >> I now declare that I firmly stand with the opinion that F65 should NOT be softened. >>
>  
> Alt attributes are simple, clear, easy to use and understand, compatible with accessibility software and tools.
>  
> Richard
>  
> From: Marco Zehe
> Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 8:18 AM
> To: Detlev Fischer
> Cc: David MacDonald ; HTML Accessibility Task Force ; WCAG ; public-comments-wcag20@w3.org
> Subject: Re: WCAG considering amending F65 to NOT fail missing ALT text if title or aria-label is present
>  
>  
> On Nov 26, 2013, at 9:53 PM, Detlev Fischer <detlev.fischer@testkreis.de> wrote:
> 
>> The intended change of F65 is driven by the aim to publish more ARIA Techniques to establish ARIA as part of the toolbox, hopefully to be picked up by devs to make all sorts of fancy web stuff more accessible. I believe that this will be seen as rightful aim by most - after all, we can't stop the fancy stuff out there, we can only hope to provide the means to make it accessible. If the ARIA Techniques help doing that, this also requires some revisiting of Common Failures to even out the inconsistencies that Jared has pointed out. (To be more precise, this is necessary if we stick to the rule that finding a failure in the test of a Failure Technique will fail the SC in all cases.)
> 
>  
> Hi all,
>  
> one thing to consider is that, if a web developer isn't going to put alt on an image, they're just as unlikely to put aria-label on it. There is a bullet-proof way to make images accessible, which is backwards compatible into the 90s. There simply is no reason to soften F65 in my opinion, by allowing ARIA on an image. Alt text is established, and those familiar with accessibility including ARIA are also familiar with alt text.
>  
> I agree with janina's comment about ARIA not going away, but it should also be not the catch-all solution for just anything. It has a specific purpose, to bridge gaps, and that's what it is doing. And an img tag is nothing new, nor is it something fancy, and there is an established way to make it accessible.
>  
> So despite my earlier concerns re CSS background images, I now declare that I firmly stand with the opinion that F65 should NOT be softened.
>  
> CSS background images and so forth are discussions for other types of success criteria and deserve their own topic.
>  
> Marco
>  
> Richard Warren
> Technical Manager
> Website Auditing Limited (Userite)
> http://www.website-accessibility.com
>  


Received on Wednesday, 27 November 2013 22:08:49 UTC

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