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

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

From: Kerstin Probiesch <k.probiesch@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 18:15:33 +0100
To: "'RichardWarren'" <richard.warren@userite.com>, "'Marco Zehe'" <mzehe@mozilla.com>
Cc: "'HTML Accessibility Task Force'" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, "'WCAG'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <006801ceed26$9d402550$d7c06ff0$@gmail.com>
I’ve read the mails and I agree with Marco and Richard, that F65 should not
be softenend. Alt is compatible even with old AT and well established. I
don’t see any reason why this failure should be softened. 

 

 

Kerstin

 

Von: RichardWarren [mailto:richard.warren@userite.com] 
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 27. November 2013 12:54
An: Marco Zehe; Detlev Fischer
Cc: HTML Accessibility Task Force; WCAG; public-comments-wcag20@w3.org
Betreff: Re: WCAG considering amending F65 to NOT fail missing ALT text if
title or aria-label is present

 

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 <mailto:mzehe@mozilla.com>  

Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 8:18 AM

To: Detlev Fischer <mailto:detlev.fischer@testkreis.de>  

Cc: David MacDonald <mailto:david100@sympatico.ca>  ; HTML Accessibility
Task Force <mailto:public-html-a11y@w3.org>  ; WCAG
<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>  ; 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

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Kerstin Probiesch - Freie Beraterin

Barrierefreiheit, Social Media, Projektleitung 

Kantstraße 10/19 | 35039 Marburg

Tel.: 06421 167002

E-Mail: mail@barrierefreie-informationskultur.de

Web: http://www.barrierefreie-informationskultur.de
<http://www.barrierefreie-informationskultur.de/> 

XING: http://www.xing.com/profile/Kerstin_Probiesch

 

 

 
Received on Friday, 29 November 2013 17:15:55 UTC

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