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

Hello James,

James: "A sufficient technique for aria-label etc. doesn't seem like a good idea. Remember that authors need not use any of the sufficient techniques in order to create conforming content but they may use one of their own techniques which is accessibility supported."

Sailesh:When F65 states aria-l* attribute does not fail, it means it is alright to use it to pass the SC.
In other words it is an attribute that is AT supported to pass SC 1.1.1 as per F65.
So it is a backdoor entry to list of sufficient techniques; in other words it will get interpreted as one.
I do not think other failures are documented that way.
I am saying, document it as a sufficient technique with guidance as to when and how it should be used.
(This is comparable to 'use title attribute when label cannot be used'.)
Then a failure technique can say absence of short text alternative by way of alt, aria-l*, title fails. 
Oh, does your above statement suggest that aria-labelledby / aria-label for images is no longer being proposed as sufficient ARIA techniques?

Yes I agree that guidance for use / interpretation of two or more short alt attributes for accessible name should be part of sufficient techniques for those attributes.

James:  "Of course it is not its primary goal. However, the spec allows this usage. I'm not sure how you draw the interpretation that a spec which has roles for various document elements such as heading, img, list, listitem, math etc. is only concerned with interactive widgets. The global states and properties such as aria-label and aria-labelledby are clearly stated in the spec that they are " applicable to all host language elements regardless of whether a role is applied "

Sailesh: And the ARIA specs also say use host language  elements and attributes and use ARIA features when  native elements / attributes are not available. This means that ARIA is meant to be used with a variety of technologies, some that might not have img and listitem and heading elements.  
In those situations, ARIA can be very useful and the "specs allow their usage" as you point out.
My last email did say how I get the impression that WAI-ARIA's focus is on interactive UI elements. That seems to be the thrust in the Intro doc.    
And if WAI-ARIA is no longer a bridging technology  etc. then the specs should be revised. It is by reading the specs as documented, a reader begins to learn and understand what WAI-ARIA is and is not.
Kind regards,
Sailesh

--------------------------------------------
On Wed, 11/27/13, james nurthen <james.nurthen@oracle.com> wrote:

 Subject: Re: WCAG considering amending F65 to NOT fail missing ALT text if title or aria-label is present
 To: "Sailesh Panchang" <spanchang02@yahoo.com>
 Cc: "HTML Accessibility Task Force" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, "WCAG" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, public-comments-wcag20@w3.org, "RichardWarren" <richard.warren@userite.com>, "Marco Zehe" <mzehe@mozilla.com>, "Detlev Fischer" <detlev.fischer@testkreis.de>
 Date: Wednesday, November 27, 2013, 1:44 PM
 
 
   
 
     
   
   
     
 
     On 11/27/2013
 10:28 AM, Sailesh
       Panchang wrote:
 
     
     
       The Techniques doc
 http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/
 should first document this as a sufficient ARIA technique
 for SC 1.1.1 before the failure can be documented.
     
     Why? I don't propose documenting this as the best
 way of doing
     anything. IMO alt is the best way to provide a text
 alternative for
     content in HTML so documenting a sufficient technique
 for aria-label
     etc. doesn't seem like a good idea. Remember that
 authors need not
     use any of the sufficient techniques in order to create
 conforming
     content but they may use one of their own techniques
 which is
     accessibility supported.
 
     
 
     Failures are different in that any content which
 "meets" the failure
     fails the success criteria. My argument is that content
 which
     clearly meets the success criteria by providing a text
 alternative
     should not automatically fail just because it does not
 use one
     particular technique. I thought the whole directive
 behind WCAG2 was
     that it was technology agnostic and was trying to
 document outcomes
     rather than specific methods of getting to that
 outcome.
 
     
 
     
       
 
 As commented in the survey feedback,  it is important to
 provide guidance to developers when two or more attributes
 for text alt are present in the code. I suppose both alt and
 aria-labelledby / aria-label / title should be identical.
 Aria-describedby should be different from the alt.
     
     Yes - it is important. A specific failure for alt text
 is not the
     place to do so. If we think this can be documented into
 a failure
     then perhaps a different failure would be appropriate.
 
     
 
     
       
 
 Yet,
 I have read and re-read the Intro to Aria 
 http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria/introduction
 and every time come away with the  conclusion that  ARIA is
 meant for rich content that cannot be marked ordinarily by
 HTML only. And these elements are interactive elements that
 have role, state, attributes besides name, description. The
 ARIA specs repeatedly identifies these as objects or custom
 widgets:
 "The incorporation of WAI-ARIA is a way for an author
 to provide proper semantics for custom widgets to make these
 widgets accessible, usable, and interoperable with assistive
 technologies. This specification identifies the types of
 widgets and structures that are commonly recognized by
 accessibility products,..."
 A critical ingredient is the "role", so when one
 repurposes a standard HTML element as something with a new
 role, ARIA kicks in.
 "Roles are a common property of platform accessibility
 APIs
  which assistive technologies use to provide the user with
 effective presentation and interaction. This role taxonomy
 includes interaction widgets and elements denoting document
 structure." 
 "States and properties are used to declare important
 attributes of an element that affect and describe
 interaction." 
 So "interactivity" seems to course through every
 vein of ARIA. 
 And there's lot of rich interactive content  that can be
 made accessible with ARIA  when browsers and AT implement
 the specs uniformly.
 That's where efforts should be focussed. 
 So from the reading of the ARIA specs I do not think fixing
 the alternative text for a plain non interactive image is
 its primary goal.  
     
     Of course it is not its primary goal. However, the spec
 allows this
     usage. I'm not sure how you draw the interpretation
 that a spec
     which has roles for various document elements such as
 heading, img,
     list, listitem, math etc. is only concerned with
 interactive
     widgets. The global states and properties such as
 aria-label and
     aria-labelledby are clearly stated in the spec that they
 are "
 applicable to all host
       language elements regardless
       of whether a role is
       applied "
 
       
 
       
 
     
 
     
       
 
 A bigger concern is the accessible name / text alternative
 computation  logic (identified as a feature at risk):the
 logic makes the ARIA attributes take precedence over native
 elements / attributes. The logic is fine for elements that
 have been repurposed with a new ARIA role; else the native
 markup should take precedence.
     
     That is not how it is defined. If you had an objection
 based on this
     the time to have made it would have been during the last
 call of the
     ARIA specification. This has now passed and the spec is
 at the point
     of testing the implementations in order to make sure the
 spec is
     implementable.
 
     
 
     
       
 
 Regards,
 Sailesh Panchang
 
 --------------------------------------------
 On Wed, 11/27/13, James Nurthen <james.nurthen@oracle.com>
 wrote:
 
  Subject: Re: WCAG considering amending F65 to NOT fail
 missing ALT text if title or aria-label is present
  To: "RichardWarren" <richard.warren@userite.com>
  Cc: "Marco Zehe" <mzehe@mozilla.com>,
 "Detlev Fischer" <detlev.fischer@testkreis.de>,
 "HTML Accessibility Task Force" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>,
 "WCAG" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>,
 public-comments-wcag20@w3.org
  Date: Wednesday, November 27, 2013, 11:21 AM
  
  F65 is a
  Failure Technique for 1.1.1. It is stating that if you fail
  F65 then you fail 1.1.1
  1.1.1 States"All non-text
  content that is presented to the user has a text
  alternative that serves the equivalent purpose, except
  for the situations listed below..... "
  
  The definition of text alternative in WCAG is
  "Text that is programmatically associated
  with non-text content or referred to from text
  that is programmatically associated with non-text content.
  Programmatically associated text is text
 whose location
  can be programmatically determined from the non-text
  content."
  I'm don't see how a missing alt text,
  when the text alternative is supplied by another means such
  as aria-label, aria-labelledby or even title, fails 1.1.1 -
  assuming they are accessibility supported.
  Regards,James
  
  
  On Nov 27, 2013, at 3:54 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 Thursday, 28 November 2013 19:22:57 UTC