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

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

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2013 16:02:49 +0100
To: Kerstin Probiesch <k.probiesch@gmail.com>
Cc: 'RichardWarren' <richard.warren@userite.com>, 'Marco Zehe' <mzehe@mozilla.com>, 'HTML Accessibility Task Force' <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, 'WCAG' <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20131201160249500771.1b8605a3@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Kerstin Probiesch, Fri, 29 Nov 2013 17:15:58 +0000:
> 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. 

I think ”softened” is the wrong angle. The right angle IMO is: Have 
things (not) happened that needs to be taken account of? 

Answer IMO: Yes. E.g. F65 declares itself as being related to 
XHTML/HTML. And @alt is an attribute specific to XHTML/HTML. However, 
F65 was written before this @alt free XHTML/HTML construct was defined: 
<figure><img src=img ><figcaption>Lorem</figcaption></figure>.

As for not happen: The focus on 'soften' seems to only have @alt in 
<img> in mind. But F65 is not only about @alt in <img>. F65 takes a 
general approach to @alt and does thus speak also about @alt in <area> 
and <input>. I don't know about <input>, but @alt in <area> is *not* a 
success story (bad support, last I checked - @title seems to work as 
good if not better than @alt).

Leif H Silli

> 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 Sunday, 1 December 2013 15:03:20 UTC

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