Re: Discussion of alt for CSS images

I'll put something together...

Cheers,

David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*

Tel:  613.235.4902

LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>

www.Can-Adapt.com



*  Adapting the web to all users*
*            Including those with disabilities*

If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
<http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>

On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
wrote:

>  Jon (or others),
>
> Do we have a test file with the different ways of including an image
> represented somewhere?  I’d love to be able to try this out and know how
> different UA’s handle the images.
>
> AWK
>
>
>
> *From:* Jonathan Avila [mailto:jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 26, 2015 2:00 PM
> *To:* WCAG
> *Subject:* RE: Discussion of alt for CSS images
>
>
>
> Ø  Yes that is what I was referring to. I think this is a problem
> especially for low vision users - perhaps we have done a disservice to
> those users in this instance.....
>
> I would agree.  So to be clear, we are talking about two issues that
> impact users with low vision.
>
>
>
> 1.    Use of CSS background  images that convey meaning but have
> programmatic names via properties such as aria-label
>
> 2.    Use of inline CSS images that convey meaning and have programmatic
> names via properties such as aria-label.
>
>
>
> While these two issues may sounds the same – CSS images are supposed to be
> presentational and those background images are rightly removed in high
> contrast mode and when color are often turned off by the browser to improve
> reading contrast for users with low vision.  Inline images are considered
> non-presentational and thus are still displayed in these modes.
>
>
>
> So, IMO the CSS background issue is a more egregious issue while the
> aria-label on inline images is lesser because at least the inline image is
> visually available.
>
>
>
> Without any requirement for the user agent to display accessibility names
> for inline images it is problematic and raises accessibility support issues.
>
>
>
> Use of presentation images with only programmatic indicators seems to meet
> like a failure – but WCAG doesn’t seem to address this under 1.1.1 or
> 1.3.1.  Seems like an oversight.  For example, WCAG WG thought wisely in SC
> 1.4.1 to require a visual indicator of color in addition to a programmatic
> one – but this didn’t carry over to CSS background images as 1.1.1 and
> 1.3.1 only require programmatic indicators and not visual.  I think the
> assumption is that everyone can interpret visual information or else they
> will be using assistive technology or a browser that has some accessibility
> feature that compensates.  While that is generally true – background images
> seem like a safe thing to remove as they are only for background purpose.
> The problem is that people are using CSS background images to convey
> meaning because use of inline images have performance challenges.
>
>
>
> Just my two cents.
>
>
>
> Jonathan
>
> --
> Jonathan Avila
> Chief Accessibility Officer
> SSB BART Group
> jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com
>
> Phone 703.637.8957
> Follow us: Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/#!/ssbbartgroup> | Twitter
> <http://twitter.com/#!/SSBBARTGroup> | LinkedIn
> <http://www.linkedin.com/company/355266?trk=tyah> | Blog
> <http://www.ssbbartgroup.com/blog> | Newsletter <http://eepurl.com/O5DP>
>
>
>
> *From:* Katie Haritos-Shea [mailto:ryladog@gmail.com <ryladog@gmail.com>]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 25, 2015 9:45 PM
> *To:* David MacDonald
> *Cc:* WCAG
> *Subject:* Re: Discussion of alt for CSS images
>
>
>
> David,
>
> Yes that is what I was referring to. I think this is a problem especially
> for low vision users - perhaps we have done a disservice to those users in
> this instance.....
>
> * katie *
>
> Katie Haritos-Shea @ GMAIL
>
> On Mar 25, 2015 4:05 PM, "David MacDonald" <david100@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> Hi Katie
>
> Do you mean if for example if someone has images turned off, or if a file
> reference was wrong, the alt would appear in the space where the image is,
> but the aria-label won't?
>
> If so, I've heard a few discussions of that on the HTML5 group. I think
> most would say that it is not a cross browser behaviour, and that some
> browsers show the alt, and others don't show the alt, and that browsers
> could show the aria-label if they wanted to.
>
> The precedence which was set when we removed the requirement for alt on
> images if there is another means of reporting ACCNAME to the API, (which I
> was not particularly in favour of), sets a precedent that this behaviour of
> populating the empty image space with a visible alt, is not considered
> necessary for conformance by our Committee, and therefore not necessary for
> conformance here.
>
>
>   Cheers,
>
> David MacDonald
>
>
>
> *CanAdapt* *Solutions Inc.*
>
> Tel:  613.235.4902
>
> LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
>
> www.Can-Adapt.com
>
>
>
> *  Adapting the web to all users*
>
> *            Including those with disabilities*
>
>
>
> If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
> <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 12:49 PM, Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <
> ryladog@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> David,
>
>
>
> The other issue was what is visually apparent to users who do not use AT
> (concerning CSS images), but are not getting the images. There is not alt
> text. Any ideas on that issue?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ** katie **
>
>
>
> *Katie Haritos-Shea*
> *Senior Accessibility SME (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA)*
>
>
>
> *Cell: 703-371-5545 <703-371-5545> **|* *ryladog@gmail.com*
> <ryladog@gmail.com> *|* *Oakton, VA **|* *LinkedIn Profile*
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/katieharitosshea/> *|* *Office: 703-371-5545
> <703-371-5545>*
>
>
>
> *From:* David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 25, 2015 12:34 PM
> *To:* WCAG
> *Subject:* Discussion of alt for CSS images
>
>
>
> Reading through the minutes I see there was a discussion about CSS in
> images... it appears one concern is that it is not announced to screen
> readers as an image. Although I generally discourage the use or CSS images,
> if someone has to do them I suggest using role="image"
>
> <div role="image" class="myPicture" aria-label="My dog fluffy looking
> happy">
>
> This should announce to a screen reader that it is an image and the
> alternate text...
>
>
>   Cheers,
>
> David MacDonald
>
>
>
> *CanAdapt* *Solutions Inc.*
>
> Tel:  613.235.4902
>
> LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
>
> www.Can-Adapt.com
>
>
>
> *  Adapting the web to all users*
>
> *            Including those with disabilities*
>
>
>
> If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
> <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 12:32 PM, Marc Johlic <johlic@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> Minutes for the March 24, 2015 meeting:
> http://www.w3.org/2015/03/24-wai-wcag-minutes.html
>
>
>
> Thanks,
> Marc
>
>
> Marc Johlic | Accessibility Consultant - Web, Mobile, & Multimedia | IBM
> *Accessibility* | IBM Research
>
>
>
>
> From:        Joshue O Connor <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie>
> To:        WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> Date:        03/20/2015 09:30 AM
> Subject:        WCAG Agenda March 24 2015
>  ------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> The WCAG WG will be meeting on Tuesday, 24 March 2015 at 11AM Eastern US
>
> (Length: up to 90 minutes)
>
> Bridge: +1.617.761.6200  (US) Passcode: 9224#
>
> IRC: irc.w3.org<http://irc.w3.org>  port: 6665 channel #wai-wcag
>
> Scribe list:https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribe_List
>
> Survey/Agenda
>
> 1) WCAG F2F @ TPAC Sapporo, and comment responses etc
> New survey https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/24thMarch2015/
>
> 2) Techniques work
>
> 3) Charter update
>
> 4) Reminder about outstanding actions
>
> --
> Joshue O Connor/Andrew Kirkpatrick
> WCAG working group co-chairs
>
>
>
>
>