This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
Splitting out and rewriting of text alternative examples to make them more usable and understandable to a wider audience and provide supporting material to aid comprehension and relate the recommendations to the relevant W3C web content accessibility guidelines 2.0 criteria and techniques. refer to change proposal for more detail PS: added as a bug as ther wasn't one for this specific change
(In reply to comment #0) > Splitting out and rewriting of text alternative examples to make them more > usable and understandable to a wider audience and provide supporting material > to aid comprehension and relate the recommendations to the relevant W3C web > content accessibility guidelines 2.0 criteria and techniques. > refer to change proposal for more detail > PS: added as a bug as ther wasn't one for this specific change change proposal URL http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20091209
I doubt that publishing this as a separate document will "[i]mprove the discoverability". I suspect that more people will read the HTML5 specification and derived documents (tutorials etc.) than a document which is devoted to a very small part of HTML (and not really an interesting part). That said, without reviewing your document closely, I think it might be an improvement to HTML5 if section 4.8.3.1 (Requirements for providing text to act as an alternative for images) were to be replaced by your (finished) document.
EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html Status: Did Not Understand Request Change Description: no spec change Rationale: I don't understand. The bug description isn't even a complete sentence. Is the request here to _remove_ text to make the text more discoverable? If so, I strongly disagree that that would have the desired effect. One need only look as far as HTML4, which did exactly that, to see the results of hiding accessibility tutorials in other documents. We need this to be as "in your face" as possible.
Hi Ian, sorry that you don't understand, have you read the change proposal? Would love your feedback on the that. change proposal URL http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20091209 I and other appear to think it is quite clear what I have proposed. The alternative (in progress) draft document is and has been available for your persual for some time now http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/misc/HTML5/new/img-new.html >One need only look as far as HTML4, which did exactly that, to see the >results of hiding accessibility tutorials in other documents. We need this to >be as "in your face" as possible. I am not suggesting hiding anything, te exact opposite actually. I am promoting the importance of the issue by giving it its own HTML WG doecument, rather than burying it in 800 pages of browser specification. But you or anyone else who feels strongly enough can argue that via a change proposal. regards stevef
Like Jason White previously pointed out [1], a format specification is not a tutorial. Detailed non-normative guidance in the application of the text alternatives is not appropriate for inclusion in a markup language specification. It could be seen as usurping the role of WCAG 2.0 and its techniques documents. The spec in this case should be confined to a concise description, consistent with WCAG 2.0, of the function of text alternatives, a _brief_ discussion of various possibilities as outlined in WCAG 2, guideline 1.1, and a reference to that specification and its techniques. However, a non-normative explanation in clarifying normative material is very important for educating authors. Steve's document is excellent. It has improved significantly since its humble beginnings in our action 54 [2]. Splitting the examples off into a primer like the first draft deliverable [3] of Action 54 did is a great idea. Even though where the tutorial lives (the WAI or the HTML domain area) doesn't really matter as long as it is in accord with both WCAG 2 and HTML5, having it under the HTML umbrella would show the HTMLWG's commitment to and support of accessibility...particularly if the doc had a statement that it was reviewed and endorsed by WAI. Most of the techniques from Action 54 were submitted as Techniques for WCAG 2.0 for the Action 54 Second Draft deliverable [4] in June 2008 [5]. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Feb/0082.html [2] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/54 [3] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/Action54AltAttribute [4] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/Action54AltAttributeSecondDraft [5] http://www.d.umn.edu/~lcarlson/alt/
(In reply to comment #2) > I doubt that publishing this as a separate document will "[i]mprove the > discoverability". I suspect that more people will read the HTML5 specification > and derived documents (tutorials etc.) than a document which is devoted to a > very small part of HTML (and not really an interesting part). > That said, without reviewing your document closely, I think it might be an > improvement to HTML5 if section 4.8.3.1 (Requirements for providing text to act > as an alternative for images) were to be replaced by your (finished) document. Hi Ms2gr > I doubt that publishing this as a separate document will "[i]mprove the > discoverability". I suspect that more people will read the HTML5 specification > and derived documents (tutorials etc.) than a document which is devoted to a > very small part of HTML (and not really an interesting part). That is debatable, and it will be a HTML5 derived document, along with the othere associated documents. > I think it might be an > improvement to HTML5 if section 4.8.3.1 (Requirements for providing text to >act as an alternative for images) were to be replaced by your (finished) >document. That could be a consideration if it were possible to include content in the HTML5 spec not authored by the current editor. regards steve
EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html Status: Rejected Change Description: no spec change Rationale: I'm all in favour of the referenced document, but I don't think we should remove the text from the HTML5 spec. We should just have both. The more places we have this the more likely it is that authors will see it.
Editor's draft of "HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives" is at: http://dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/
Adding TrackerIssue keyword as this bug is part of Issue 31 A Change Proposal has been written: split out and modify parts of Section 4.8.2.1 the img element Change Proposal http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20091209
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Aug/0124.html The bug triage sub-team believes the HTML A11Y TF should take up this bug. Additional notes may follow in a separate comment.
may use as meta bug for alt text issues
Been done.