Edit comment LC-958 for Accessibility Guidelines Working Group

Quick access to

Previous: LC-1155 Next: LC-865

Comment LC-958: Comment Shortname:; Commenter: Al Gilman <Alfred.S.Gilman@IEEE.org>; Message-id:; Section of the document concerned:

or; Refinement of the section concerned:; Status:
assigned to; Type:; Resolution status:
Response drafted Resolution implemented Reply sent to commenter; Response status:
No response from Commenter yet Commenter approved disposition Commenter objected to disposition
Commenter's response (URI):; Comment:
CAPTCHAs, displays that match the "if" clause of the third bullet, can claim conformance under the first bullet by simply saying in the ALT text "image to test if you are a human." It is not just nor do I believe it is the authors' intent to open up this loophole.

Proposed Change:

Close loophole by repairing the first bullet along the lines of the previous comment.; Related issues: 818 955 960
(space separated ids); WG Notes: [TEAMC] [] Al is right. There is a loophole. ARG! There are actually five situations in 1.1.1: A: If non-text content presents information that can be presented in text, then text alternatives present the same information as the non-text content. B: If the information cannot be presented in text or if the non-text content accepts user input, then text alternatives at least identify the purpose of the non-text content. C: If non-text content is multimedia, live audio-only or live video-only content, a test or exercise that must be presented in non-text format, or primarily intended to create a specific sensory experience, then text alternatives at least identify the non-text content with a descriptive text label. D: If the purpose of non-text content is to confirm that content is being operated by a person rather than a computer, then different forms are provided to accommodate multiple different disabilities. E: If non-text content is pure decoration, or used only for visual formatting, or if it is not presented to users, then it is implemented such that it can be ignored by assistive technology. Discussion: I believe A, B, and E are mutually exclusive and stand alone. C is an exception to A for certain types of non-text content: multimedia, live audio-only, live video-only, or a test or exercise that must be presented in non-text content. I think the "content that is intended to create a specific sensory experience" part of C is just a specific example of B. D addresses a specific type of either C (a test that must be presented in non-text content) or B (non-text content for which the information cannot be presented in text). I think it's more C than B. Technically, you "could" present the CAPTCHA information in text but it would invalidate the test. For this very specific type of non-text content, 1.1.1 requires alternative forms (audio?) which seems to conflict with the guideline itself which requires "text". (BTW, this is the argument that was used to re-ject LC-891 which suggested we needed a requirement under 1.1 for a sign language version of audio only content.) I think what we really want is for the CAPTCHA to be "labeled" under provision C of 1.1.1 and "additionally" we require the alternative form. This sounds like a new success criteria under a different guideline than 1.1. It almost seems like this belongs under 4.2 "Ensure that content is accessible or provide an accessible alternative". Assuming 4.2 doesn't get removed altogether, this still doesn't quite fit as the alternative form of the CAPTCHA is not "accessible". It's just that you offer multiple forms so that users can pick the one that works for them. It seems like this is something fundamental that is missing from WCAG 2.0 that could apply to other types of content. Section 508 allows for "equivalent facilitation". For example, I might have a visual animation and a separate audio version of the animation. Blind users can use the audio version and deaf users can use the visual animation This does not meet 1.1.1 but isn't it "equivalent facilitation"? I know it doesn't work for deaf/blind individuals but neither does our CAPTCHA solution. Are we saying that providing an alternative form for equivalent facilitation is only okay for CAPTCHAs? David and Andi had a phone call and came up with a joint proposal. Discussed in the 01 February 2007 telecon: Resolution: back to Team C to consider survey comments and related issues (738, 956, 1281, 1524, 1506, 801, 1282, 800 and 1155) http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2007/02/01-wai-wcag-minutes.html Comments from first survey: Becky: I find this phrase in the second exception confusing, "then different forms are provided to accommodate multiple different disabilities. " I believe the intent is to provide more than one type of mechanism for the captcha to accomodate different disability types but the current phrase of multiple different disabilities is confusing. I suggest just removing the word multiple unless folks think that changes the meaning???? Ben Caldwell Keep this issue open for the following reasons. I think we need to discuss this one. We've used the exceptions approach to this SC in the past, though I couldn't easily find our rationale for abandoning it. Also, this proposal interacts with a number of previously closed issues (738, 956, 1281, 1524, 1506, 801, 1282, 800 and 1155), so of which look like they would need to be reopened if we were to accept this revision. Frederick Boland Close this issue with the following changes. "multiple" and "different" seem redundant? Christophe Strobbe Close this issue with the following changes. How about moving the Turing exception to a separate success criterion? That would close the loophole, I think. E.g. For non-text content that confirms that content is being operated by a person rather than a computer, different forms are provided to accommodate different disabilities. Bruce Bailey Close this issue as proposed. I *really* like the idea of collapsing the cases and adding exceptions. I think it may even be possible to break 1.1.1 into multiple SC. Bengt Farre Close this issue as proposed. Gregg Vanderheiden Keep this issue open for the following reasons. THis has subbullets that modify parents of other subbullets the bullet at the bottom is part of the level 1 list. doesnt work. MC: 2007-04-09 Removed from proposal because SC not created: In considering this comment, the working group felt that this loophole applied to more than just CAPTCHA, so we have also added a new success criterion under guideline 4.1 to help clarify that there are types of non-text content for which more than just a label would be required. @@ include text from New 4.1 SC (All text can be programmatically determined) Discussed in the 12 April 2007 telecon: Resolution: accepted unanimous 1250, 1032, 1031, 1129, 528, 958, 818 http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2007/04/12-wai-wcag-minutes.html {accept} DONE Modify 1.1.1 based on proposal at http://tinyurl.com/ysfsks Response: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0108.html; Resolution: Thank you for your comment. We have modified 1.1.1 as follows: 1.1.1 Non-text Content: Except for the situations listed below, a text alternative that presents equivalent information is provided for all non-text content. * Controls-Input: If non-text content is a control or accepts user input, then it has a name that describes its purpose. (See also Guideline 4.1 Support compatibility with current and future user agents, including assistive technologies) * Media-Test-Sensory: If non-text content is multimedia , live audio-only or live video-only content, a test or exercise that must be presented in non-text format , or primarily intended to create a specific sensory experience , then text alternatives at least identify the non-text content with a descriptive text label. (For multimedia, see also Guideline 1.2 Provide synchronized alternatives for multimedia.) CAPTCHA: If the purpose of non-text content is to confirm that content is being accessed by a person rather than a computer, then text alternatives that identify and describe the purpose of the non-text content are provided and alternative forms in different modalities are provided to accommodate different disabilities. * Decoration-Formatting-Invisible: If non-text content is pure decoration, or used only for visual formatting, or if it is not presented to users, then it is implemented such that it can be ignored by assistive technology.; (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)