13447 2011-07-29 07:35:27 +0000 SVG content model VENN diagram needs to be made accessible [3.2.5.1 Kinds of content/content-venn.svg]. 2012-01-24 21:08:39 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified HTML WG LC1 HTML5 spec unspecified PC All RESOLVED FIXED http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-html5-20110525/content-models.html#content-models a11y, a11ytf P2 normal --- 1 joshue.oconnor ian faulkner.steve ian laura.lee.carlson mike peter.winnberg public-html-a11y public-html-admin public-html-wg-issue-tracking public-html-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 51734 0 joshue.oconnor 2011-07-29 07:35:27 +0000 Issues – On focus the SVG diagram container is just announces as ‘Frame 0’. This is in breach of WCAG as the frame needs a suitable title that describes the diagram such as @longdesc or ARIA describedby. Also the SVG diagram isn’t keyboard accessible, the descriptions of each of the nodes only appear on mouse over events. They should also be able to be triggered via the keyboard. The fallback diagram ‘content-venn.png’ for where SCG is un-supported etc also needs alternate text to be applied in a way that is accessible. It currently isn’t, as the alternate text of the .png document is not announced when the diagram is parsed by Assistive Technology. 51781 1 ian 2011-07-29 16:33:13 +0000 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: The entire diagram is completely redundant with information already in the spec. The spec itself is its alternative text. It's just a way to expose the information to visual users in a way optimised for visual users. Non-visual users already have the information presented in a way optimised for them. 51807 2 peter.winnberg 2011-07-30 11:19:48 +0000 If you think the image is completely redundant then remove it. Leaving it as it is right now with the accessibility issues that it is has is not an option in a document that is supposed to be about best practice for creating documents on the web. 51822 3 joshue.oconnor 2011-07-30 16:34:57 +0000 (In reply to comment #1) > EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. [...] > The entire diagram is completely redundant with information already in the > spec. The spec itself is its alternative text. I don't really follow. Can you please point out how the 'spec is the @alt of the diagram'? > It's just a way to expose the > information to visual users in a way optimised for visual users. I think its a good diagram and I like the way the various content (metadata, Flow content models etc) are demonstrated on mouse over in browsers like Safari, FF (doesn't work in Opera 11.5). > Non-visual > users already have the information presented in a way optimised for them. To me, there is no real programatically determined relationship between the diagram and the spec content. It seems more self contained but just inaccessible for the reasons stated. 51823 4 joshue.oconnor 2011-07-30 16:36:43 +0000 (In reply to comment #2) > If you think the image is completely redundant then remove it. Leaving it as it > is right now with the accessibility issues that it is has is not an option in a > document that is supposed to be about best practice for creating documents on > the web. I think it would be a pity to remove it, it just needs that little 'extra' to make it accessible IMO. 51829 5 peter.winnberg 2011-07-30 19:58:13 +0000 (In reply to comment #4) > I think it would be a pity to remove it, it just needs that little 'extra' to > make it accessible IMO. Yes, I think that would be the best solution as well because I think it does add some value to the specification. 52382 6 mike 2011-08-04 05:00:54 +0000 mass-moved component to LC1 55284 7 faulkner.steve 2011-08-17 08:14:21 +0000 the venn diagram in question also includes content that is currently displayed ONLY on mouse over. This content needs to be made to display in an input device indepenedent manner. 55286 8 faulkner.steve 2011-08-17 08:31:02 +0000 (In reply to comment #7) > the venn diagram in question also includes content that is currently displayed > ONLY on mouse over. This content needs to be made to display in an input device > indepenedent manner. apologies didn't read the bug correctly, the keyboard issue is already covered 55289 9 faulkner.steve 2011-08-17 10:51:33 +0000 (In reply to comment #1) > 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: > > The entire diagram is completely redundant with information already in the > spec. The spec itself is its alternative text. It's just a way to expose the > information to visual users in a way optimised for visual users. Non-visual > users already have the information presented in a way optimised for them. I have provided a simple example solution to this issue: http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/2011/08/html5-accessibility-chops-interactive-image-example/ 55296 10 faulkner.steve 2011-08-17 13:57:09 +0000 added TrackerRequest keyword 55469 11 faulkner.steve 2011-08-19 08:22:56 +0000 (In reply to comment #1) > 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: > > The entire diagram is completely redundant with information already in the > spec. The spec itself is its alternative text. It's just a way to expose the > information to visual users in a way optimised for visual users. Non-visual > users already have the information presented in a way optimised for them. I asked for some feedback from actual 'non-visual' users on my proposed solution: http://twitter.com/#!/stevefaulkner/status/104104287671554048 reponses so far: http://twitter.com/#!/LeonieWatson/status/104458860114358272 http://twitter.com/#!/vick08/status/104234825958965248 http://twitter.com/#!/ezufelt/status/103783313424125952 http://twitter.com/#!/stevefaulkner/status/104126540022956032 http://twitter.com/#!/DesignedByBlind/status/104130426628616192 http://twitter.com/#!/DesignedByBlind/status/104133743316451329 55669 12 faulkner.steve 2011-08-23 08:10:44 +0000 Thhought I would re-open the bug (and remove the trackerrequest keyword) to give the editor the opprotunity to reconsider his WONTFIX position given the new input provided, rather than have to escalate the bug to a HTML WG issue. 60793 13 ian 2011-12-02 17:39:58 +0000 I'll move the textual description of the image to after the image, as requested. 63071 14 ian 2012-01-24 21:08:39 +0000 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: Accepted Change Description: see diff given below Rationale: see comment 13