W3C

Results of Questionnaire ISSUE-122: alt text and description for Lady of Shalott example - Straw Poll for Objections

The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody.

This questionnaire was open from 2011-03-17 to 2011-03-24.

4 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

  1. Objections to the Change Proposal to permit authors to provide text alternatives for images considered to enhance the themes or subject matter of a page
  2. Objections to the Change Proposal to move advice about providing alt text for "purely decorative images" out of the HTML5 spec

1. Objections to the Change Proposal to permit authors to provide text alternatives for images considered to enhance the themes or subject matter of a page

We have a Change Proposal to permit authors to provide text alternatives for images considered to enhance the themes or subject matter of a page. If you have strong objections to adopting this Change Proposal, please state your objections below.

Keep in mind, you must actually state an objection, not merely cite someone else. If you feel that your objection has already been adequately addressed by someone else, then it is not necessary to repeat it.

Details

Responder Objections to the Change Proposal to permit authors to provide text alternatives for images considered to enhance the themes or subject matter of a page
Lachlan Hunt I object to this change proposal in so far as it affects the HTML specification.

The summary of this questionnaire and the original issue refer only to the alt-techniques document and the problem with the Lady of Shalott example contained within. Yet, this change proposal attempts to also change the HTML specification, which is out of scope for this issue.
Gregory Rosmaita in accord with the consensus reached at the HTML WG face to Face meeting at TPAC 2010 in Lyon:

http://www.w3.org/2010/11/04-html-wg-minutes.html#item12

and in fulfillment of the subsequent action with which i was tasked:

http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/195

and in accord with the discussion at the March 2011 HTML Accessibility Task Force Face to Face:

http://www.w3.org/2011/03/19-html-a11y-minutes.html#item01

i am commenting on behalf ot the HTML Accessibility Task Force to
indicate to the chairs, editor and working group that the "purely decorative images" change proposal, located at:

http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/purely_decorative_images

has the endorsement of the Task Force. The Accessibility Task Force, therefore, urges the chairs to adopt:

http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/purely_decorative_images

as reflective of both the HTML WG and the HTML Accessibility Task
Force's final disputation on Issue-122
Laura Carlson
John Foliot From my perspective, Steve has been doing an excellent job of documenting best author guidance with regard to many aspects of HTML5, whereas WCAG is in bug repair mode. Both CP's rely on Steve's text here:
http://dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/#decorative

...text that is taken from the document Greg references here:
"Exceptions to this rule, in cases where CSS cannot be used to display an entirely decorative image, are covered by the HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives. [HTML ALT TECHS:
http://dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques] Authors are also encouraged to consult the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 for more detailed information and acceptable techniques. [WCAG 2.0]"

Either way, the good author guidance is originating from the same source today.

I suspect that Steve's work will be more formally incorporated into WAI/WCAG (as it is already supported by PFWG), but with no offense to Steve's proposal, I would back Greg's none-the-less.

I am confident that either proposal meets our greater need, and I throw my support behind the most current texts, as well as an ongoing document that will be maintained within WAI. But I also strongly believe in modularization as a better way of maintaining the web, as well as support moving *all* author guidance for accessibility into a stand-alone document, which is what Greg's proposal suggests (and which Steve is authoring). If author guidance can be in a smaller document than the omnibus HTML5 (such as Steve's "Techniques for providing useful text alternatives"), making modifications and changes there would be significantly easier than reworking HTML5 "The Standard".

Greg's CP proposes this, whilst Steve's extracts text from his document and directly inserts it into HTML5 "The Standard". While this may prove to be harmless over the long run, there is also a risk that it may become outdated or changed in the future with the potential of having contradictory texts in different locations. The risk is small, but exists.

2. Objections to the Change Proposal to move advice about providing alt text for "purely decorative images" out of the HTML5 spec

We have a Change Proposal to move advice about providing alt text for "purely decorative images" out of the HTML5 spec.

Keep in mind, you must actually state an objection, not merely cite someone else. If you feel that your objection has already been adequately addressed by someone else, then it is not necessary to repeat it.

Details

Responder Objections to the Change Proposal to move advice about providing alt text for "purely decorative images" out of the HTML5 spec
Lachlan Hunt I object to this change proposal in so far as it affects the HTML specification.

The summary of this questionnaire and the original issue refer only to the alt-techniques document and the problem with the Lady of Shalott example contained within. Yet, this change proposal attempts to also change the HTML specification, which is out of scope for this issue.
Gregory Rosmaita
Laura Carlson
John Foliot

More details on responses

  • Lachlan Hunt: last responded on 23, March 2011 at 23:15 (UTC)
  • Gregory Rosmaita: last responded on 24, March 2011 at 17:26 (UTC)
  • Laura Carlson: last responded on 25, March 2011 at 04:44 (UTC)
  • John Foliot: last responded on 25, March 2011 at 06:01 (UTC)

Everybody has responded to this questionnaire.


Compact view of the results / list of email addresses of the responders

WBS home / Questionnaires / WG questionnaires / Answer this questionnaire

Report issues on GitHub project w3c/wbs-design (preferred) or by mail to sysreq.