- From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 06:57:54 -0500
- To: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, HTMLwg WG <public-html@w3.org>
Hi Steve, Maciej wrote: > "can we compromise, and agree to have alt information *both* in a > detailed standalone document *and* in the HTML5 spec?" To have text alternative information in both documents and ensure that both... * Are in harmony and do not contradict each other. * Do not get out of sync. * Are better in line with W3C accessibility guidelines, developed over many years. Here is an idea... Use a server side include to include the contents of "HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives" [1] replacing, correcting, and improving 4.8.2.1.1 to 4.8.2.1.11 in the HTML spec [2]. This would also reduce maintenance in the HTML spec. Steve would you be agreeable to using a SSI? Best Regards, Laura [1] http://dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/ [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/embedded-content-1.html#the-img-element >> On 7 August 2010 03:45, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote: >> >>> Hello HTML Working Group, >>> >>> Studying the Change Proposals for issues 31 and 80, it seems to me we can >>> break down this issue into a number of sub-issues. It also seems to me >>> that >>> we may be able to achieve consensus on at least some of the specific >>> sub-points, based on recent discussion. I'd like to especially commend >>> Jonas >>> and Laura for engaging in constructive discussion over the past week or >>> two, >>> as well as everyone else who contributed to the conversation. >>> >>> I believe we may be able to achieve consensus on some specific >>> sub-issues, >>> leaving us with a smaller subset that may need to be resolved via survey. >>> For each sub-issue I have noted my observation. I'd like to hear from the >>> Working Group on these points. >>> >>> 1) Should specific alt requirements for authors be in the HTML5 spec or >>> in >>> a separate draft? >>> >>> - Good arguments were presented for having a standalone document giving a >>> rich, detailed treatment of text equivalents. An initial version has been >>> published as a First Public Working Draft by the Working Group. It was >>> argued that this could raise visibility. >>> - Good arguments were also presented for having information about >>> specific >>> cases for alt in the HTML5 draft itself. It was argued that this would >>> help >>> with awareness for authors who may not have thought about accessibility >>> up >>> front. >>> >>> ** Query for the Working Group: can we compromise, and agree to have alt >>> information *both* in a detailed standalone document *and* in the HTML5 >>> spec? None of the arguments presented seem to require the information to >>> be >>> exclusively in one form or the other. >>> >>> >>> 2) Should we keep the email / private communications exemption to the alt >>> requirement? >>> >>> - Some have said this waters down the alt requirement too much. >>> - Some have argued that, in the situations where this seems more helpful, >>> the generator exception would apply anyway, and the remaining cases are >>> too >>> narrow to be worth a special validator setting. >>> - It has been pointed out that the intended recipients of a document are >>> a >>> subjective factor, one that cannot be determined from looking at the >>> document alone, and one that may change over time. >>> - It has been argued that a manual validator switch is a confusing way to >>> serve a particular authoring use case. >>> >>> ** Query for the Working Group: can we agree to remove this exemption, as >>> largely superseded by the generator exemption? >>> >>> >>> 3) Should we keep, remove or modify the generator exemption to the alt >>> requirement? >>> >>> - Some have argued that this exemption should be removed entirely, since >>> it removes the alt requirement too much. >>> - Others argue that, without this exemption, content generators will be >>> forced to choose between producing nonconforming documents, or adding >>> bogus >>> alt text. >>> - Still others suggest that a per-element mechanism may be more >>> acceptable >>> than a global setting to enable the generator exemption (e.g. @missing or >>> @noalt attribute). >>> >>> I would like to add a thought of my own: there is a technical benefit to >>> a >>> per-element mechanism rather than a global one. Imagine the case of a >>> template that includes some content images, but also has slots that may >>> contain unknown, user-generated images. Perhaps it is a "stationery" >>> template for email, or a blog theme. It would be very useful to validate >>> the >>> original template contents fully applying an alt requirement, but to >>> apply >>> the generator exemption only to the unknown user-provided content that is >>> inserted as a template. This is better served with a per-element >>> mechanism >>> instead of a per-document mechanism. >>> >>> ** Query for the Working Group: can we compromise on a per-element >>> generator exemption mechanism, rather than outright removal or retention >>> of >>> the current per-document mechanism? >>> >>> >>> 4) Should we remove the figure/figcaption exemption to the alt >>> requirement? >>> >>> - One Change Proposal effectively suggests this removal, by proposing >>> that >>> there be *no* exemptions. >>> - However, there does not seem to be a great deal of enthusiasm for >>> removing this exemption, and even the advocates of this removal have >>> mixed >>> feelings. >>> >>> ** Query for the Working Group: can we set aside the call to remove the >>> figcaption exemption, particularly given a favorable outcome on (2) and >>> (3)? >>> >>> 5) Should we add aria-labeledby to the list of alt exemptions? >>> >>> - Some in the accessibility community favor this exemption, to enable use >>> of ARIA without alt. >>> - Others argue that this would be a layering violation. >>> - An argument was also made that this would interfere with user agents >>> such as text-only browsers that cannot display images, but are not >>> assistive >>> technologies as such. >>> - There is also a general desire to minimize the number of exceptions to >>> the alt requirement, to avoid watering it down. This would seem to argue >>> against adding more exemptions. >>> - It seems that, for many who advocate cleaning up alt, this particular >>> change is a relatively minor part of their concerns, and not one of the >>> key >>> issues with the current spec. >>> >>> ** Query for the Working Group: can we set aside the call to add >>> aria-labeledby to the list of exemptions, particularly given a favorable >>> outcome on (2) and (3)? >>> >>> >>> 6) Should we add role=presentation to the list of alt exemptions? >>> >>> - The arguments pro and con are much as for point (5). >>> >>> ** Query for the Working Group: can we set aside the call to add >>> role=presentation to the list of exemptions, particularly given a >>> favorable >>> outcome on (2) and (3)? >>> >>> >>> 7) Should we remove the title attribute exemption to the alt requirement? >>> >>> - There hasn't been a lot of discussion on this point. >>> - Input from the WG is welcome. Is this one of the biggest points of >>> concern? >>> >>> This is a point that we may not be able to resolve by consensus, even if >>> we resolve the others. >>> >>> >>> 8) Should the semantic definition of the img element be changed, from >>> saying it represents "an image", to saying that it represents "content >>> that >>> can be rendered visually (as an image) and textually"? >>> >>> - There hasn't been a lot of discussion on this point. >>> - Input from the WG is welcome. Is this one of the biggest points of >>> concern? >>> - This particular point, taken alone, doesn't seem to have material >>> impact >>> on what UAs or conformance checkers will do. >>> >>> Perhaps we can drop this mostly-editorial change, if we can get closer to >>> consensus on the more technical points above. >>> >>> >>> If any of these sub-issues leads to extended discussion, please consider >>> forking a separate thread with a new subject line. >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> Maciej >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> with regards >> >> Steve Faulkner >> Technical Director - TPG Europe >> Director - Web Accessibility Tools Consortium >> >> www.paciellogroup.com | www.wat-c.org >> Web Accessibility Toolbar - >> http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html >> >> >> > > > -- > with regards > > Steve Faulkner > Technical Director - TPG Europe > Director - Web Accessibility Tools Consortium > > www.paciellogroup.com | www.wat-c.org > Web Accessibility Toolbar - > http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html -- Laura L. Carlson
Received on Monday, 9 August 2010 11:58:28 UTC