- From: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
- Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 04:59:30 -0500
- To: "'Alastair Campbell'" <acampbell@nomensa.com>
- CC: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, "'Steve Faulkner'" <sfaulkner@paciellogroup.com>, <kirsten@can-adapt.com>
I agree with what you are saying. In fact I proposed that yesterday on the HTML5 call. However, I was informed that before I joined the HTML5 working group, they came to a consensus on this issue after much discussion and reflection, and have allowed this exception. I don't think that will change given that HTML5 is going to candidate recommendation. It would be a normative change. It's usually not a good idea to revisit issues that were achieved on a consensus because it undermines the health of the group and puts everything into question. But it does not appear in any way that they are asking us to create the same exception. WCAG is about making websites more accessible, the wording that they have chosen in HTML5 makes it clear that they are discouraging it is less accessible. Cheers, David MacDonald CanAdapt Solutions Inc. Tel: 613.235.4902 http://ca.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100 www.Can-Adapt.com Adapting the web to all users Including those with disabilities This e-mail originates from CanAdapt Solutions Inc. Any distribution, use or copying of this e-mail or the information it contains by other than the intended recipient(s) is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify me at the telephone number shown above or by return e-mail and delete this communication and any copy immediately. Thank you. Le présent courriel a été expédié par CanAdapt Solutions Inc. Toute distribution, utilisation ou reproduction du courriel ou des renseignements qui s'y trouvent par une personne autre que son destinataire prévu est interdite. Si vous avez reçu le message par erreur, veuillez m'en aviser par téléphone (au numéro précité) ou par courriel, puis supprimer sans délai la version originale de la communication ainsi que toutes ses copies. Je vous remercie de votre collaboration. -----Original Message----- From: Alastair Campbell [mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com] Sent: January 17, 2014 4:35 AM To: David MacDonald Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org; public-html-a11y@w3.org Subject: RE: figcaption NOT an replacement for alt in HTML5 Hi David, That makes a lot of sense from an HTML5 spec point of view but there is still a niggling issue for me: The test procedure in a technique for using figcaption to meet 1.1.1 would have to include something like: "Check that there was no way of including an alt text when publishing". That is fine if you're testing your own site, but unhelpful for testing other people's website and places a requirement on the tester to have knowledge of the back-end administration area. ATAG inherits from WCAG for alt text, which hasn't (so far) had an exception for alt text on an images. I suspect the AUWG (including me!) would need to modify the ATAG spec around this, although I'm not sure how yet. Trying to look at this from all points of view (content, UA, AT) I'd be a lot more comfortable is there were not an exception for alt text, it leads to a lot of complications. What about modifying the advice in HTML5 so that the image should include a short, 'static' alt text as Greg suggested, or even a null alt. In that way you would meet the HTML5 spec (almost) as easily as missing out the alt text, and the criteria for meeting WCAG are still that the image should be described. -Alastair -----Original Message----- From: David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca] Sent: 16 January 2014 21:27 To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org; public-html-a11y@w3.org Cc: 'Steve Faulkner'; kirsten@can-adapt.com Subject: figcaption NOT an replacement for alt in HTML5 Steve Faulkner and I had a good discussion about figure/figcaption elements during the html5 call today. There are a few important things that may help bring clarity to the discussion. The HTML 5 spec only has one specific use case when the figcaption could replace alt text. And that is when the alt text is not available at the time of publication. It includes two important notes. ======= Note: Such cases are to be kept to an absolute minimum. If there is *even the slightest possibility* of the author having the ability to provide real alternative text, then *it would not be acceptable to omit the alt attribute* Note: Since some users cannot use images at all (e.g. because they are blind) the alt attribute is only allowed to be omitted when no text alternative is available and none can be made available, as in the above examples. " http://tinyurl.com/ox8uhys ===== I must confess that I was among those who thought HTML5 said the <figcaption> element was freely interchangeable with the ALT inside a <figure> element, even though the limitation is spelled out in the document in two places. HTML5 provides no basis for a WCAG Sufficient technique on this. I think this will also help inform the greater discussion around F65. Because I believe most of us thought that there already was an alternative to ALT text allowed in HTML 5 which set a precedent. Any discussion we have about allowing substitutes for ALT, (aria-labelledby, aria-label ...) will have to stand on their own merits without a precedent in HTML 5. Testing of figcaption with assistive technology is here http://davidmacd.com/test/figure.html Cheers, David MacDonald CanAdapt Solutions Inc. Tel: 613.235.4902 http://ca.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100 www.Can-Adapt.com Adapting the web to all users Including those with disabilities
Received on Friday, 17 January 2014 10:00:04 UTC