From foliot at wats.ca Wed Oct 3 11:07:29 2007 From: foliot at wats.ca (John Foliot) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 11:07:29 -0700 Subject: [html4all] What now ALT? Message-ID: <007b01c805e8$46db0710$c62b42ab@Piglet> In light of the fact that a judge today ruled that the suit against Target.com can become a class action suit, and that one of the key complaints is that many of the images do not have alt text, or appropriate alt text... This writer wonders aloud what the judge would think about sites that deliberately did not include alt text, or did not programmatically allow for the inclusion of alt text... "The court's decision today makes clear that people with disabilities no longer can be treated as second-class citizens in any sphere of mainstream life. This ruling will benefit hundreds of thousands of Americans with disabilities." - Larry Paradis, Disability Rights Advocates http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2191625,00.asp "All e-commerce businesses should take note of this decision and immediately take steps to open their doors to the blind." - Dr. Marc Maurer, president of the National Federation of the Blind. http://tinyurl.com/33jszq It would seem pretty fool-hardy to create an online application or site that did not allow for the insertion of alt text; especially if the above results in serious grief for Target.com. A future spec might be conformant without alt text, but a judge might still award damages; making the exercise theoretically moot. Score one for social engineering! JF From jfoliot at stanford.edu Wed Oct 3 10:58:01 2007 From: jfoliot at stanford.edu (John Foliot - Stanford Online Accessibility Program) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 10:58:01 -0700 Subject: [html4all] What now ALT? Message-ID: <007301c805e6$f143d2b0$c62b42ab@Piglet> In light of the fact that a judge today ruled that the suit against Target.com can become a class action suit, and that one of the key complaints is that many of the images do not have alt text, or appropriate alt text... This writer wonders aloud what the judge would think about sites that deliberately did not include alt text, or did not programmatically allow for the inclusion of alt text... "The court's decision today makes clear that people with disabilities no longer can be treated as second-class citizens in any sphere of mainstream life. This ruling will benefit hundreds of thousands of Americans with disabilities." - Larry Paradis, Disability Rights Advocates http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2191625,00.asp "All e-commerce businesses should take note of this decision and immediately take steps to open their doors to the blind." - Dr. Marc Maurer, president of the National Federation of the Blind. http://tinyurl.com/33jszq It would seem pretty fool-hardy to create an online application or site that did not allow for the insertion of alt text; especially if the above results in serious grief for Target.com. A future spec might be conformant without alt text, but a judge might still award damages; making the exercise theoretically moot. Score one for social engineering! JF From jfoliot at stanford.edu Wed Oct 3 16:53:19 2007 From: jfoliot at stanford.edu (John Foliot - Stanford Online Accessibility Program) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 16:53:19 -0700 Subject: [html4all] What now ALT? In-Reply-To: <913F7236-C7C1-49D5-AD23-08DD9C42AE94@w3.org> Message-ID: <00f201c80618$94552950$c62b42ab@Piglet> Rimantas Liubertas wrote: > > So you have alt="" and everyone is happy, but you don't use alt > attribute and you end up in court? "Common sense is not that common" > indeed. There ARE cases when alt attribute would do more harm and > hurt accessibilty more than lack of it, and spec would allow you to > omit it in that case. @alt should only be used when it makes sense. > Of course, if you catch yourself with IMG which does not need alt > attribute make sure this img does belong in code, not in CSS. > > Regards, > Rimantas Rimantas, I have heard this claim before, that an alt attribute would do more harm and hurt accessibility, but I have yet to hear exactly when and how. How exactly does it cause harm? (Please be specific) I've heard opinions from people who do not *need* to rely on alternative text, but as they are simply opinions, I have also heard counter-opinions. How does it "hurt" accessibility, and more importantly, where is the data that backs up these claims? When does not using @alt make sense? (again, specifically) I can't think of *any* instance when providing no information to one unique group (i.e. discriminating) makes sense, and frankly, neither can the law if we are to understand what Human Rights Legislation suggests. Be very, very clear: alt="" is hardly useful(1) and does little to improve accessibility on the surface - the bottom line is that the very same image is essentially inaccessible to the non-sighted user. However, if a future specification suggests that under "certain circumstances" images might not need an alternative text because it is too difficult, or because, as Anne van Kesteren claimed, [*he* did not find] "...it necessary to provide replacement text for all those images. This would take too much time for little benefit."(2)... Imagine if a major corporation (like Target) could use this as a legal defense? (And don't think that they would not) And so the "social engineering" aspect of mandating images to have alternative text removes this potential legal defense. *This* is why the current suggestion is bad. The Working Group are correct, there are times when adding alternative text might not be simple or easy (the suggestion of an image upload directly from a cell phone is legitimate), but rather than endorsing *no* alternative text, we should instead be looking at a different kind of 'signaling device' which could serve as a temporary placeholder under these circumstances. (and I stress the word temporary) Photo-sharing sites might default to this placeholder value, but would (Should? Must?) allow content owners/creators the ability to go back and modify the default placeholder with something more appropriate. These sites could also do the socially responsible thing and actually encourage their clients to do the right thing by offering FAQ/training, ensuring that their web-based user-interfaces actually allow for the insertion of alternative text, and perhaps even offering incentives: Google made a game out of having people supply meta values to images that they were indexing. Sometimes creative solutions come from places other than the technical realm. But to throw up our hands and say, "well, it's simply too hard, and has little payoff"... Nope can't accept that, sorry, that's just plain wrong. JF (1)I say hardly, because at least today, screen reading technology reads out nothing when it encounters alt="", whereas an image with no alt attribute generally results in the screen reading software "heuristically" reading aloud the file name (2) http://annevankesteren.nl/2007/09/alt From P.Taylor at Rhul.Ac.Uk Thu Oct 4 04:13:52 2007 From: P.Taylor at Rhul.Ac.Uk (Philip Taylor (Webmaster)) Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 12:13:52 +0100 Subject: [html4all] What now ALT? In-Reply-To: <5ccfb3340710031507s50101cf9rc3a4c2f887f1e428@mail.gmail.com> References: <007301c805e6$f143d2b0$c62b42ab@Piglet> <5ccfb3340710031507s50101cf9rc3a4c2f887f1e428@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4704CAF0.1080908@Rhul.Ac.Uk> Rimantas Liubertas wrote: > There ARE cases when alt attribute would do more harm and hurt accessibilty > more than lack of it, and spec would allow you to omit it in that case. Can you give instances of these ? Philip TAYLOR From P.Taylor at Rhul.Ac.Uk Thu Oct 4 09:15:27 2007 From: P.Taylor at Rhul.Ac.Uk (Philip Taylor (Webmaster)) Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 17:15:27 +0100 Subject: [html4all] What now ALT? In-Reply-To: <5ccfb3340710040813r68e4c851m808705113b181dfb@mail.gmail.com> References: <007301c805e6$f143d2b0$c62b42ab@Piglet> <5ccfb3340710031507s50101cf9rc3a4c2f887f1e428@mail.gmail.com> <4704CAF0.1080908@Rhul.Ac.Uk> <5ccfb3340710040813r68e4c851m808705113b181dfb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4705119F.7000204@Rhul.Ac.Uk> Sorry, Rimantas, neither of these are relevant to your assertion. You wrote : >> > There ARE cases when alt attribute would do more harm and hurt accessibilty >> > more than lack of it, and spec would allow you to omit it in that case. but your examples are of wrongly used ALT rather than of ALT being intrinsically harmful. Both of the pages you cite should have correct ALT text where appropriate and null ALT text for spacers; what I was hoping you would be able to adduce was an example of a page in which /any/ ALT text (including null) would "do more harm and hurt accessibilty more than lack of it" Philip TAYLOR -------- >> Can you give instances of these ? > > http://www.hookmitchell.com/ - how NOT to use @alt. Enjoy. > http://www.excelcon.com/ From P.Taylor at Rhul.Ac.Uk Thu Oct 4 10:26:08 2007 From: P.Taylor at Rhul.Ac.Uk (Philip Taylor (Webmaster)) Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 18:26:08 +0100 Subject: [html4all] What now ALT? In-Reply-To: <5ccfb3340710041018t4ec3a9fv3d7aa7855051689d@mail.gmail.com> References: <007301c805e6$f143d2b0$c62b42ab@Piglet> <5ccfb3340710031507s50101cf9rc3a4c2f887f1e428@mail.gmail.com> <4704CAF0.1080908@Rhul.Ac.Uk> <5ccfb3340710040813r68e4c851m808705113b181dfb@mail.gmail.com> <4705119F.7000204@Rhul.Ac.Uk> <5ccfb3340710041018t4ec3a9fv3d7aa7855051689d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <47052230.4070709@Rhul.Ac.Uk> Rimantas Liubertas wrote: >>>> > There ARE cases when alt attribute would do more harm and hurt accessibilty >>>> > more than lack of it, and spec would allow you to omit it in that case. > That's the very point: null ALT text is apropriate sometimes, and it makes sense > to have it allowed in the specification. As you say: it is not the > presence or lack > of the alt attribute, it's the proper usage (or not usage). So would you therefore agree that it is not "[the] alt attribute [that] would do more harm and hurt accessibilty more than lack of it" but rather "[the incorrect use of the] alt attribute [that] ..." ? If you would, then this is no reason for not requiring use of the attribute, but what is therefore required in addition is a campaign to make authors aware of the correct use thereof. Philip TAYLOR From oedipus at hicom.net Thu Oct 4 10:52:02 2007 From: oedipus at hicom.net (Gregory J. Rosmaita) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 13:52:02 -0400 Subject: [html4all] guidance on using ALT (was Re: What now ALT?) In-Reply-To: <47052230.4070709@Rhul.Ac.Uk> References: <007301c805e6$f143d2b0$c62b42ab@Piglet> <5ccfb3340710031507s50101cf9rc3a4c2f887f1e428@mail.gmail.com> <4704CAF0.1080908@Rhul.Ac.Uk> <5ccfb3340710040813r68e4c851m808705113b181dfb@mail.gmail.com> <4705119F.7000204@Rhul.Ac.Uk> <5ccfb3340710041018t4ec3a9fv3d7aa7855051689d@mail.gmail.com> <47052230.4070709@Rhul.Ac.Uk> Message-ID: <20071004174037.M93016@hicom.net> philip taylor wrote, quote: > [...] this is no reason for not > requiring use of the attribute, but what is therefore required > in addition is a campaign to make authors aware of the correct > use thereof. unquote there ALREADY IS a W3C technical recommendation covering use of alt and its nuances -- it's called the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), and can be found -- like ALL technical recommendations, in the W3C's TR space: http://www.w3.org/TR/wcag10 and its associated "Techniques" document: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-TECHS/ work on version 2.0 of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines continues -- the latest public draft of which can be located at: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/ http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/ the issue of "appropriate" long and short descriptors is also address in another W3C technical recommendation, the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) http://www.w3.org/TR/atag10 http://www.w3.org/TR/atag10-techs and work on ATAG 2.0 continues -- the latest public drafts are located at: http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG20 http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG20-TECHS/ and more information about both documents -- which form HTML5 dependencies, can be found at the relevant groups' W3C web apace: http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL again, as technical recommendations, there are mutual dependencies between these documents and all other W3C technical recommendations having said that, the more the information contained in WCAG and ATAG is integrated into the HTML5 draft, the better off everyone will be, and the number of red herrings in the HTML sea will drop off precipitously gregory. ------------------------------------------------------------- SELF-EVIDENT, adj. Evident to one's self and to nobody else. -- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary ------------------------------------------------------------- Gregory J. Rosmaita: oedipus at hicom.net Camera Obscura: http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/ Oedipus' Online Complex: http://my.opera.com/oedipus ------------------------------------------------------------- From foliot at wats.ca Thu Oct 4 12:59:06 2007 From: foliot at wats.ca (John Foliot) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 12:59:06 -0700 Subject: [html4all] artistic expression was: What now ALT? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <00af01c806c1$09a719e0$0301a8c0@Piglet> Jonathan Chetwynd wrote: > > Our students are pre-literate, or learning to read, however screen > readers are not generally helpful. They do benefit from symbols and > illustrations. Jonathan, I have known you and respected your work in the area of cognitive disabilities for many years now. Could it not be possible however that symbols with alternative text, in conjunction with a voicing application, could/would actually benefit your user-base? Would not "speaking aloud" a symbol or other illustration re-enforce the multi-modal learning experience? As well, given the fact that these users might possibly be accessing content with help from others, alternative text for these helpers could/would be of benefit as well, no? While addressing the needs of your core constituency often requires moving outside of the norm (something that took me a long time to fully understand), incorporating Universal access principles, so long as they do not negatively impact on the core audience, cannot be wrong can it? What harm does providing alternative text cause to the illiterate? > My guess is that not many readers on this list would feel competent > to illustrate a creative work. That is not merely to illustrate the > word "car", but to convey the meaning of say "Waiting for Godot" or > "The Birthday Party" through illustration. > > > http://www.magpiedance.org.uk/magpol-library/s0/1.html > This slide show, will I hope convey to each one of you some of that > wonder, which the creator felt unable himself to use words. Jonathan, these are indeed inspirational photos, and certainly ones that would task the content creator when applying alternative text. However, an appropriate combination of alt text and LONGDESC descriptions could attempt to convey the wonder and joy that these photos convey. *NOBODY* says that it is always simple and easy, but without textual equivalents, how can the spirit of these photos be conveyed to those that cannot see? Clearly, describing "The Mona Lisa" and this photo [http://www.magpiedance.org.uk/magpol-library/s0/2.html] requires hard work, but if you had to describe that photo, for the sake of alternative text, requires (to my mind anyway) a distanced and surgical eye: alt="two of the [magpie dance project] students in an embrace": concise, accurate and unique - if you wished to also include a longer description, the HTML means to do so exists (LONGDESC). My creative writing skills sadly are not up to the task at this moment, but I'm sure that a wonderful prose statement could be generated that would attempt to convey the spirit of that wonderful photo. > We would be delighted for anyone who felt capable to provide suitable > alt content. > content that wasn't merely box ticking but inspirational. > Providing anything useful, even if incomplete, is not "box ticking", it's attempting to provide an alternative. Providing *no* description at all simply says that certain users are not worth catering too... Surely you cannot believe that? JF From laura.lee.carlson at gmail.com Fri Oct 5 08:01:11 2007 From: laura.lee.carlson at gmail.com (Laura Carlson) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 10:01:11 -0500 Subject: [html4all] What now ALT? In-Reply-To: <007b01c805e8$46db0710$c62b42ab@Piglet> References: <007b01c805e8$46db0710$c62b42ab@Piglet> Message-ID: <1c8dbcaa0710050801s5aefd7a1pb02a1d2c101acdf@mail.gmail.com> John Foliot wrote: > In light of the fact that a judge today ruled that the suit against > Target.com can become a class action suit The order from Judge Marilyn Patel is at: http://dralegal.org/downloads/cases/target/target-order.txt Best Regards, Laura -- Laura L. Carlson From foliot at wats.ca Mon Oct 8 12:19:38 2007 From: foliot at wats.ca (John Foliot) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 12:19:38 -0700 Subject: [html4all] What now ALT? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <007801c809e0$2bb1dc60$ae3142ab@Piglet> Jon Barnett wrote: > Things like this should not affect the decisions of this working > group. Universality and accessibility are still design principles of > this group, and those design principles will affect the decisions of > this group. Fair enough, but they are also working on a principle of avoiding "bloat", and of "paving cowpaths". We now have a real world situation (cowpath) that is suggesting, from the perspective of accessibility, that having images with *no alt text at all* will be deemed inaccessible, and quite possibly, illegal. Exactly why should those considerations not be taken into account? The current specification is suggesting that images, under certain circumstances [1] can exist without an alt value, and still be conformant. Yet, if the law suggests that this is illegal, we will have a possible scenario that, while technically conformant, will never (should never?) exist, for fear of legal ramifications. So why bother? Who is going to take advantage of this? (If Target gets whacked hard, do you really think that Flickr isn't going to sit up and take notice?) It becomes a non-solution, and still leaves the existing "problem" in place. I have floated the idea of a reserved value for alt (I suggested alt="_none" [with the underscore]) as one possible alternative for instances when automated tools do not allow for author supplied alt text. While it does not completely address the real problem (the image still is inaccessible to the non-sighted/non-visual UA), User Agents could be configured to deal with an expected value such as this consistently (as could Adaptive Technology), and equally important maintains the requirement of an alt value in an image. Will content authors continue to abuse this? Probably, but they will be making a conscious decision to 'abuse', rather than skate by their responsibility by pointing to a spec and saying "see, it's allowed". Fanciful suggestions of future heuristic tools providing useful content are still science-fiction, and thinking that content authors will provide useful information on the page with the image are utopian dreams - if they are going to do this, why can't they also use an alt attribute? > Regardless of what markup is used, we all agree that documents should > be universally accessible. No one has suggested otherwise, and I > really hope this subject was not raised to imply that anyone is > against accessibility. Well Jon, there are enough people out there that are concerned about the direction that the specification is taking to call that statement into question. Protracted 'discussions' regarding the possibility of dropping accessibility features (@headers/@id, LONGDESC, etc.), based on nothing more than "numbers", makes feeling secure about universal accessibility less than a given. Keeping presentational elements such as and are hardly beacons of accessible development, but rather of an acquiescence to the fact that in 2007, some content creators still don't care. Newly minted concoctions such as [http://tinyurl.com/2kbu2x] also seem to be missing some key considerations for those users who cannot "see" the canvas (the spec speaks of "fallback" content, but does not state how to implement this content - as well, if the canvas element must out-put a PNG file [as the default], where is the requirement for alternative text for *that* image within that element's spec?)[2]. I'm not saying that the Working Group are against accessibility, but some of the emergent suggestions and recommendations are not exactly pro-accessibility either. > It is possible today to create an HTML document that meets all > programmatically computable conformance criteria and still completely > fail at accessibility. This will always be the case - markup that > can be used is markup that can be abused. Since some countries are > extending their "disabled rights" laws to include web page markup, it > follows that you can still write a web page that passed an HTML > validator but still breaks the law of your land, and again, this is > independent of the alt attribute itself. No argument there, but again, why bother? On one hand we have possible accessibility features being dismissed due to lack of use (LONGDESC), and on the other hand we have the newly emergent possibility that images can be conformant without any alt value (when quite possibly no-one will ever avail themselves to it for fear of legal entanglements). What problem then, exactly, is being solved? This needs to be re-thought. > I seriously doubt this decision could be construed to legally codify > the HTML alt attribute. If HTML 5, 6, or 7 can be conformant and > accessible without an attribute named "alt", no judge should care or > would care. On the day that this can be shown to be viable, I will back you 100%. But until a better way of ensuring that images have a chance of being made accessible that transcends the requirement of the alt attribute, it's the best we've got, and to suggest that moving forward it can sometimes be optional is just wrong. You want to replace it with something better? I'm with you all the way, but to just leave it behind, because sometimes content authors think "...not finding it necessary to provide replacement text for all those images[is necessary - JF]. This would take too much time for little benefit."[3] is just wrong. It *is* against universal accessibility, and there is no other way of saying it. JF [1] I personally have a concern over the "policing" of the specific circumstances cited by the WG authors, as it is a subjective call, open to content author 'manipulation' - I fear that once the doors are open, it will become a fertile ground for abuse. [2] I really want to be wrong about , but I've gone through the draft spec more than once, and these are the conclusions I have drawn. If I am wrong, please do show me where these issues are addressed. I am willing to listen and learn. [3] Anne van Kesteren's blog posting of September 20th [http://annevankesteren.nl/2007/09/alt] simply goes to prove the point that the possibility of abuse can and will exist - his justification for not providing an alternative text to an image of a building has little technical merit, but rather, in his own word, *he* could not justify the effort. From laura.lee.carlson at gmail.com Wed Oct 17 10:32:47 2007 From: laura.lee.carlson at gmail.com (Laura Carlson) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 12:32:47 -0500 Subject: [html4all] Omitting alt Attribute for Critical Content Wiki page Message-ID: <1c8dbcaa0710171032j59f6a225x7c05ad3d0134eba4@mail.gmail.com> Hi, I've started a HTML5 working group Wiki page for gathering info on the the "Omitting the alt Attribute for Critical Content" issue. Before I link it to the main issues page and announce it over there, I'd like to run it by the html4all group for review. Comments and ideas for improvement are greatly appreciated. The page is at: http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/IssueAltAttribute Many thanks. Best Regards, Laura From faulkner.steve at gmail.com Thu Oct 18 00:48:18 2007 From: faulkner.steve at gmail.com (Steven Faulkner) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 08:48:18 +0100 Subject: [html4all] Omitting alt Attribute for Critical Content Wiki page In-Reply-To: <1c8dbcaa0710171032j59f6a225x7c05ad3d0134eba4@mail.gmail.com> References: <1c8dbcaa0710171032j59f6a225x7c05ad3d0134eba4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <55687cf80710180048q47266cb0pfb140e98cb931ac2@mail.gmail.com> Hi Laura, have only had a quick scan so far, but looks brilliant! You are really one for sifting through and synthesising masses of data. Thanks for your efforts, I will read it more throughly and provide feedback. On 17/10/2007, Laura Carlson wrote: > > Hi, > > I've started a HTML5 working group Wiki page for gathering info on the > the "Omitting the alt Attribute for Critical Content" issue. > > Before I link it to the main issues page and announce it over there, > I'd like to run it by the html4all group for review. > > Comments and ideas for improvement are greatly appreciated. The page is > at: > http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/IssueAltAttribute > > Many thanks. > > Best Regards, > Laura > > _______________________________________________ > List_HTML4all.org mailing list > http://www.html4all.org/wiki > -- 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://wilbur.bytowninternet.com/pipermail/list_html4all.org/attachments/20071018/2f4c94bb/attachment.html From joshue.oconnor at cfit.ie Thu Oct 18 03:09:27 2007 From: joshue.oconnor at cfit.ie (Joshue O Connor) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 11:09:27 +0100 Subject: [html4all] Omitting alt Attribute for Critical Content Wiki page In-Reply-To: <1c8dbcaa0710171032j59f6a225x7c05ad3d0134eba4@mail.gmail.com> References: <1c8dbcaa0710171032j59f6a225x7c05ad3d0134eba4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <471730D7.6010208@cfit.ie> Hi Laura, Well done. The page is really good. You cover the issue very well and have presented the main points in a rational and cogent manner. Cheers Josh From laura.lee.carlson at gmail.com Thu Oct 18 09:59:59 2007 From: laura.lee.carlson at gmail.com (Laura Carlson) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 11:59:59 -0500 Subject: [html4all] Omitting alt Attribute for Critical Content Wiki page In-Reply-To: <55687cf80710180048q47266cb0pfb140e98cb931ac2@mail.gmail.com> References: <1c8dbcaa0710171032j59f6a225x7c05ad3d0134eba4@mail.gmail.com> <55687cf80710180048q47266cb0pfb140e98cb931ac2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1c8dbcaa0710180959k64764a24k62bf5e01c76715cf@mail.gmail.com> Steven wrote: > I will read it more throughly and provide feedback. Thanks, Steve. I look forward to it. Best Regards, Laura From foliot at wats.ca Thu Oct 18 13:20:46 2007 From: foliot at wats.ca (John Foliot) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 13:20:46 -0700 Subject: [html4all] Omitting alt Attribute for Critical Content Wiki page In-Reply-To: <1c8dbcaa0710171032j59f6a225x7c05ad3d0134eba4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <00cc01c811c4$604b50f0$b53142ab@Piglet> Laura Carlson wrote: > > Comments and ideas for improvement are greatly appreciated. The page > is at: http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/IssueAltAttribute > Simply awesome. I know I've been MIA for weeks now, but that's what it has been. Laura, thank you! JF From laura.lee.carlson at gmail.com Fri Oct 19 11:42:44 2007 From: laura.lee.carlson at gmail.com (Laura Carlson) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 13:42:44 -0500 Subject: [html4all] (off list) Re: Omitting alt Attribute for Critical Content Wiki page Message-ID: <1c8dbcaa0710191142u5ffb5fd0xf82ebfaf07a1752a@mail.gmail.com> Hi John, > I know I've been MIA for weeks now, but that's what it has been. Hope everything is okay. We've missed you. Welcome back :-) Thanks for the kind words. Best Regards, Laura > Simply awesome. I know I've been MIA for weeks now, but that's what it has > been. Laura, thank you! -- Laura L. Carlson From laura.lee.carlson at gmail.com Sun Oct 21 04:52:29 2007 From: laura.lee.carlson at gmail.com (Laura Carlson) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 06:52:29 -0500 Subject: [html4all] Jack Pickard Article: Accessibility: Making it All Worthwhile Message-ID: <1c8dbcaa0710210452s4a49235fo9bd7344b65d6b33b@mail.gmail.com> Jack Pickard has a post that seems very timely, as we just worked out the html4all mission statement. It reminds accessibility folks of purpose and the bigger picture. It also has good insight into some difficulties for those passionate about web accessibility saying, "Sometimes being someone who is committed to web accessibility feels like it's not a good thing. You get the feeling people feel you're some kind of zealot (even if you aren't); you get the feeling that other people think that when you raise the issue of accessibility you're being awkward or causing problems, that it's something unwanted, that's an extra chore you're forcing them to add on to their developments..." The full article continues at: http://www.thepickards.co.uk/index.php/200710/accessibility-making-it-all-worthwhile/ Best Regards, Laura -- Laura L. Carlson From joshue.oconnor at cfit.ie Sun Oct 21 08:24:16 2007 From: joshue.oconnor at cfit.ie (Joshue O Connor) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 16:24:16 +0100 Subject: [html4all] Jack Pickard Article: Accessibility: Making it All Worthwhile In-Reply-To: <1c8dbcaa0710210452s4a49235fo9bd7344b65d6b33b@mail.gmail.com> References: <1c8dbcaa0710210452s4a49235fo9bd7344b65d6b33b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <471B6F20.2000205@cfit.ie> Hi Laura, I agreed with Jack when he says: > if you?re someone who is passionate about web accessibility (however you define it); if you?re someone who believes that it is important for anyone >who considers themselves to have a professional skill level in web development to be able to ensure that their sites aren?t discriminating against the disabled, [...] That resonated with me as I really do think that accessibility is a quality issue. In other words it is a by-product of best practice. This is in terms of user interface design, good coding practice, usability etc. So if a developer knows their stuff they are in a much better position to build accessible and usable websites/applications and interfaces. If they don't (and there is a lot of this) they produce substandard designs that are inaccessible/unusable etc. Is Jack aware of html4all? If not he would be a good addition. Cheers Josh From laura.lee.carlson at gmail.com Sun Oct 21 10:18:50 2007 From: laura.lee.carlson at gmail.com (Laura Carlson) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 12:18:50 -0500 Subject: [html4all] Jack Pickard Article: Accessibility: Making it All Worthwhile In-Reply-To: <471B6F20.2000205@cfit.ie> References: <1c8dbcaa0710210452s4a49235fo9bd7344b65d6b33b@mail.gmail.com> <471B6F20.2000205@cfit.ie> Message-ID: <1c8dbcaa0710211018j1ffa58c4o9c06907ed662f963@mail.gmail.com> Hi Josh, > That resonated with me as I really do think that accessibility is a > quality issue. In other words it is a by-product of best practice. This > is in terms of user interface design, good coding practice, usability > etc. Yes, that is meaningful to me also. The same sentiment applies to good spec design not discriminating against the disabled and accessibility being a strong design principle. > Is Jack aware of html4all? If not he would be a good addition. I'm not sure if he is aware of the group. I read his blog but I don't know him. I agree he would make a great addition. If you know him, Josh, please do invite him to join. I personally haven't contacted anyone about joining. I think a few of the founders may have. Hopefully after we announce publicly our html4all membership will increase. (smile) Best Regards, Laura -- Laura L. Carlson From joshue.oconnor at cfit.ie Mon Oct 22 03:24:08 2007 From: joshue.oconnor at cfit.ie (Joshue O Connor) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 11:24:08 +0100 Subject: [html4all] Jack Pickard Article: Accessibility: Making it All Worthwhile In-Reply-To: <1c8dbcaa0710211018j1ffa58c4o9c06907ed662f963@mail.gmail.com> References: <1c8dbcaa0710210452s4a49235fo9bd7344b65d6b33b@mail.gmail.com> <471B6F20.2000205@cfit.ie> <1c8dbcaa0710211018j1ffa58c4o9c06907ed662f963@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <471C7A48.3060905@cfit.ie> Hi Laura, I don't know Jack ( I can't help but laugh at that as many would probably agree) but maybe we could get in touch with him after the announcement. Cheers Josh From faulkner.steve at gmail.com Mon Oct 22 04:12:09 2007 From: faulkner.steve at gmail.com (Steven Faulkner) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 12:12:09 +0100 Subject: [html4all] Publishing the HTML 5 draft In-Reply-To: <55687cf80710180831g4437138bwd1357724d98381c5@mail.gmail.com> References: <55687cf80710180831g4437138bwd1357724d98381c5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <55687cf80710220412k443ae40xc916a580cb7b28d6@mail.gmail.com> Hi Anne, Didn't know whether to take you lack of response to my request as a yes or no, but couldn't imagine why there would be any objection to such a small change? On 18/10/2007, Steven Faulkner wrote: > > Hi Anne, can you include the open status of the alt attribute as optional > in 1.1. Open Issues > > > current wording: > "Details of accessibility and media-independence features, such as the > longdesc, summary and headers attributes" > > suggested wording: > > "Details of accessibility and media-independence features, such as the > longdesc, *alt*, summary and headers attributes" > > thanks in advance. > > On 18/10/2007, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > The Working Group has been in the running for over half a year now. I > > think it would be good if we published the HTML 5 draft[1] to let the > > outside world know what we're looking at and what we're working on to > > improve. Maybe in addition we could publish the HTML 5 differences from > > HTML 4 draft[2] which informally documents the differences between HTML > > 5 > > and HTML 4. (I've updated that document recently to reflect the latest > > changes to the HTML 5 draft.) > > > > Kind regards, > > > > > > [1] > > [2] > > > > > > -- > > Anne van Kesteren > > > > > > > > > > > -- > 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://wilbur.bytowninternet.com/pipermail/list_html4all.org/attachments/20071022/0347f97f/attachment.html From annevk at opera.com Mon Oct 22 04:20:54 2007 From: annevk at opera.com (Anne van Kesteren) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 13:20:54 +0200 Subject: [html4all] Publishing the HTML 5 draft In-Reply-To: <55687cf80710220412k443ae40xc916a580cb7b28d6@mail.gmail.com> References: <55687cf80710180831g4437138bwd1357724d98381c5@mail.gmail.com> <55687cf80710220412k443ae40xc916a580cb7b28d6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 13:12:09 +0200, Steven Faulkner wrote: > Hi Anne, > Didn't know whether to take you lack of response to my request as a yes > or no, You shouldn't take it as anything. Just that you have to wait a little longer for a reply. (I rather address a bunch of feedback at once as it takes some time to get everything set up, etc.) > but couldn't imagine why there would be any objection to such a small > change? I made the change now, as I already had the document open for changing something about the patent policy. -- Anne van Kesteren From laura.lee.carlson at gmail.com Mon Oct 22 06:25:05 2007 From: laura.lee.carlson at gmail.com (Laura Carlson) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 08:25:05 -0500 Subject: [html4all] Jack Pickard Article: Accessibility: Making it All Worthwhile In-Reply-To: <471C7A48.3060905@cfit.ie> References: <1c8dbcaa0710210452s4a49235fo9bd7344b65d6b33b@mail.gmail.com> <471B6F20.2000205@cfit.ie> <1c8dbcaa0710211018j1ffa58c4o9c06907ed662f963@mail.gmail.com> <471C7A48.3060905@cfit.ie> Message-ID: <1c8dbcaa0710220625n1faf47abydeea6b7e54f0fbc8@mail.gmail.com> Josh wrote: > I don't know Jack ( I can't help but laugh at that as many would > probably agree) Cute :-) But I for one don't agree. > but maybe we could get in touch with him after the > announcement. Great idea. Beat Regards, Laura -- Laura L. Carlson From laura.lee.carlson at gmail.com Tue Oct 23 06:09:15 2007 From: laura.lee.carlson at gmail.com (Laura Carlson) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 08:09:15 -0500 Subject: [html4all] Fwd: Request for PFWG WAI review of Omitting alt Attribute for Critical Content In-Reply-To: <1c8dbcaa0710230604r2432fdc7qfc9da3c83fa8aaa3@mail.gmail.com> References: <1c8dbcaa0710230604r2432fdc7qfc9da3c83fa8aaa3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1c8dbcaa0710230609i2dc5fb87i5fa76b643357bd31@mail.gmail.com> f.y.i. The following request was sent today, asking for a review of the "Omitting alt Attribute for Critical Content" issue. PFWG is the W3C's "Protocols and Formats Working Group". Part of their mission is to review specifications under development in other W3C Working Groups in to ensure consideration of accessibility-related needs. Best Regards, Laura ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Laura Carlson Date: Oct 23, 2007 8:04 AM Subject: Request for PFWG WAI review of Omitting alt Attribute for Critical Content To: wai-xtech at w3.org, Al Gilman , Judy Brewer , Michael Cooper , wai-liaison at w3.org Cc: HTML5 WG The HTML 5 working group is questioning and debating the need for the alt attribute on critical content. In fact, the current HTML 5 Editor's Draft allows instances where critical content is allowed to have no alt attribute on the img element. Alternate text is essential for accessibility. There needs to be a markup solution to indicate whether or not the alternate text of an image is critical to understand the content - omitting such an important attribute is ambiguous, and doesn't help anyone. The problem is differentiating between ignorant and intentional lack of text. The issue is detailed at: http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/IssueAltAttribute In order for this debate to reach a satisfactory resolution, review of this issue and advice from the PFWG and WAI on the potential accessibility impact of omitting alt attribute for critical content in HTML 5 would be appreciated. Thank you. Best Regards, Laura L. Carlson Steve Faulkner Gregory J. Rosmaita Joshue O Connor Philip TAYLOR Robert Burns -- HTML WG Members ---------- End Forwarded message ---------- Laura L. Carlson From harry.loots at ieee.org Tue Oct 23 07:21:14 2007 From: harry.loots at ieee.org (Harry Loots) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 15:21:14 +0100 Subject: [html4all] Omitting alt Attribute for Critical Content Wiki page In-Reply-To: <1c8dbcaa0710171032j59f6a225x7c05ad3d0134eba4@mail.gmail.com> References: <1c8dbcaa0710171032j59f6a225x7c05ad3d0134eba4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20071023142114.M81102@ieee.org> Laura - i promised last week i'd comment; and despite being later than expected, here it is. Just two words: "excellent document". one comment on the comment: The current listed "Solutions" i believe should be: 1. User enters attribute "_none" (alt="_none"). This entered value signifies a conscious decision by the author that the associated image's alt attribute should be empty. 2. Authoring tool (CMS) enters value "_omit" (or other) to signify that the content editor has omitted alt attribute. This is the equivalent generated value to hand-coded _none. (By providing this ability we make a clear distinction between user entered and Authoring Tool generated.). 3. Authoring tool (CMS) enters value "_ignored". This generated value signifies that content editor ignored the alt attribute. I remain of the opinion that a conscious decision should be made when it comes to the alt attribute. I have simply sat too many nights around the campfire with non-believers to think that this can be ignored. The exception to this rule would be if an alternative attribute is proposed (eg: 'caption'), and User Agents can be 'taught' to display this attribute value in a manner similar to the table caption element. (This attribute would require CSS styling as well.) A further issue which requires some thinking is the dual usage of the alt and title attributes in img. This i tend to think leads to confusion - i have yet to see the value of a 'tooltip' obscuring the text below it... Regards Harry mob: +44 (0) 794 034 3919 ~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~ Good judgement comes from experience. Experience, of course, is the result of poor judgement. - Geoff Tabin ---------- Original Message ----------- From: "Laura Carlson" To: html4all Sent: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 12:32:47 -0500 Subject: [html4all] Omitting alt Attribute for Critical Content Wiki page > Hi, > > I've started a HTML5 working group Wiki page for gathering info on > the the "Omitting the alt Attribute for Critical Content" issue. > > Before I link it to the main issues page and announce it over there, > I'd like to run it by the html4all group for review. > > Comments and ideas for improvement are greatly appreciated. The page > is at: http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/IssueAltAttribute > > Many thanks. > > Best Regards, > Laura > > _______________________________________________ > List_HTML4all.org mailing list > http://www.html4all.org/wiki ------- End of Original Message ------- From harry.loots at ieee.org Tue Oct 23 07:36:58 2007 From: harry.loots at ieee.org (Harry Loots) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 15:36:58 +0100 Subject: [html4all] Jack Pickard Article: Accessibility: Making it All Worthwhile In-Reply-To: <471C7A48.3060905@cfit.ie> References: <1c8dbcaa0710210452s4a49235fo9bd7344b65d6b33b@mail.gmail.com> <471B6F20.2000205@cfit.ie> <1c8dbcaa0710211018j1ffa58c4o9c06907ed662f963@mail.gmail.com> <471C7A48.3060905@cfit.ie> Message-ID: <20071023143658.M26378@ieee.org> The Jack Pickards of this world - including the people in this room; especially those based in the UK - may soon have some help from Her Majesty's Government - >From (UK) Public Sector Forums newsletter: CoI MIGHT TAKE DOWN INACCESSIBLE WEBSITES Our good friends over there have finally come up with a consultation document about accessibility and they're certainly rattling some sabres. To our knowledge it's not on the Cabinet Office website yet but you can grab yours from here: http://www.publicsectorforums.co.uk/page.cfm?pageID=4185 The 2 most important items that come out of this report (from my perspective) is (A and B): A. Minimum level of accessibility 1. The minimum level of accessibility for all Government websites is Level Double-A of the W3C guidelines. Any new site approved by the Cabinet Sub-Committee on Public Engagement and the Delivery of Service (DA(PED)) must conform to these guidelines from the point of publication. 2. Continuing standalone sites must achieve this level of accessibility by December 2008. Websites which fail to meet the mandated level of conformance shall be subject to the withdrawal process for .gov.uk domain names, as set out in Naming and Registering Websites (TG101). and further: B. Software accessibility 24. It is possible for full applications to be delivered via the web and served to the user within a browser, so it may be necessary to consider guidelines and standards that specifically relate to software rather than web content. In order to build an accessible website, authoring tools must produce content that upholds web content accessibility standards. This is especially important if the organisation will be using a Content Management System (CMS) to produce content automatically. This must be taken into account during the procurement of authoring tools and CMS. 25. So that content authoring is possible for people with the widest range of abilities, it is also important that the interface to the content authoring tools or CMS is also accessible. Accessibility criteria must therefore be specified in the choice and procurement of these systems, in the same way that accessibility is taken into account when commissioning websites. If you cant get access to this forum I could post a copy somewhere - perhaps on HTML4ALL wiki? Regards Harry mob: +44 (0) 794 034 3919 ~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~ Good judgement comes from experience. Experience, of course, is the result of poor judgement. - Geoff Tabin ---------- Original Message ----------- From: Joshue O Connor To: HTML4All Sent: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 11:24:08 +0100 Subject: Re: [html4all] Jack Pickard Article: Accessibility: Making it All Worthwhile > Hi Laura, > > I don't know Jack ( I can't help but laugh at that as many would > probably agree) but maybe we could get in touch with him after the > announcement. > > Cheers > > Josh > > _______________________________________________ > List_HTML4all.org mailing list > http://www.html4all.org/wiki ------- End of Original Message ------- From laura.lee.carlson at gmail.com Tue Oct 23 07:50:32 2007 From: laura.lee.carlson at gmail.com (Laura Carlson) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 09:50:32 -0500 Subject: [html4all] Omitting alt Attribute for Critical Content Wiki page In-Reply-To: <20071023142114.M81102@ieee.org> References: <1c8dbcaa0710171032j59f6a225x7c05ad3d0134eba4@mail.gmail.com> <20071023142114.M81102@ieee.org> Message-ID: <1c8dbcaa0710230750v59f03b2bw170a7d872b743032@mail.gmail.com> Hi Harry, Thank you for the kind words and the excellent suggestion. I've added it to the solutions section on the Wiki page. Best Regards, Laura -- Laura L. Carlson From laura.lee.carlson at gmail.com Tue Oct 23 08:01:52 2007 From: laura.lee.carlson at gmail.com (Laura Carlson) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 10:01:52 -0500 Subject: [html4all] Jack Pickard Article: Accessibility: Making it All Worthwhile In-Reply-To: <20071023143658.M26378@ieee.org> References: <1c8dbcaa0710210452s4a49235fo9bd7344b65d6b33b@mail.gmail.com> <471B6F20.2000205@cfit.ie> <1c8dbcaa0710211018j1ffa58c4o9c06907ed662f963@mail.gmail.com> <471C7A48.3060905@cfit.ie> <20071023143658.M26378@ieee.org> Message-ID: <1c8dbcaa0710230801k75398f26hd364d8db83b061dd@mail.gmail.com> Harry wrote: > CoI MIGHT TAKE DOWN INACCESSIBLE WEBSITES Very interesting, indeed. Thanks for the news. > If you cant get access to this forum I could post a copy somewhere - perhaps > on HTML4ALL wiki? It might be good to have a news page in the Wiki for things like this. If someone is up for maintaining it. Any volunteers? Best Regards, Harry -- Laura L. Carlson From harry.loots at ieee.org Tue Oct 23 10:49:13 2007 From: harry.loots at ieee.org (Harry Loots) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 18:49:13 +0100 Subject: [html4all] Jack Pickard Article: Accessibility: Making it All Worthwhile In-Reply-To: <1c8dbcaa0710230801k75398f26hd364d8db83b061dd@mail.gmail.com> References: <1c8dbcaa0710210452s4a49235fo9bd7344b65d6b33b@mail.gmail.com> <471B6F20.2000205@cfit.ie> <1c8dbcaa0710211018j1ffa58c4o9c06907ed662f963@mail.gmail.com> <471C7A48.3060905@cfit.ie> <20071023143658.M26378@ieee.org> <1c8dbcaa0710230801k75398f26hd364d8db83b061dd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20071023174913.M26131@ieee.org> Laura wrote: > It might be good to have a news page in the Wiki for things like > this. If someone is up for maintaining it. Any volunteers? I'm happy to put my hand up ;) Tell me where to go for how-to, etc Regards Harry ---------- Original Message ----------- From: "Laura Carlson" To: HTML4All Sent: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 10:01:52 -0500 Subject: Re: [html4all] Jack Pickard Article: Accessibility: Making it All Worthwhile > Harry wrote: > > > CoI MIGHT TAKE DOWN INACCESSIBLE WEBSITES > > Very interesting, indeed. Thanks for the news. > > > If you cant get access to this forum I could post a copy somewhere - perhaps > > on HTML4ALL wiki? > > It might be good to have a news page in the Wiki for things like > this. If someone is up for maintaining it. Any volunteers? > > Best Regards, > Harry > -- > Laura L. Carlson > > _______________________________________________ > List_HTML4all.org mailing list > http://www.html4all.org/wiki ------- End of Original Message ------- From laura.lee.carlson at gmail.com Tue Oct 23 11:05:26 2007 From: laura.lee.carlson at gmail.com (Laura Carlson) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 13:05:26 -0500 Subject: [html4all] Jack Pickard Article: Accessibility: Making it All Worthwhile In-Reply-To: <20071023174913.M26131@ieee.org> References: <1c8dbcaa0710210452s4a49235fo9bd7344b65d6b33b@mail.gmail.com> <471B6F20.2000205@cfit.ie> <1c8dbcaa0710211018j1ffa58c4o9c06907ed662f963@mail.gmail.com> <471C7A48.3060905@cfit.ie> <20071023143658.M26378@ieee.org> <1c8dbcaa0710230801k75398f26hd364d8db83b061dd@mail.gmail.com> <20071023174913.M26131@ieee.org> Message-ID: <1c8dbcaa0710231105w2516ec6ep52fb9b10de4e7410@mail.gmail.com> Hi Harry, > > It might be good to have a news page in the Wiki for things like > > this. If someone is up for maintaining it. Any volunteers? > > I'm happy to put my hand up ;) Thank you! > Tell me where to go for how-to, etc The html4all Wiki is at: http://html4all.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page Some how-tos are at: http://html4all.org/wiki/index.php/Wiki_Tips_Tricks Rob Burns is the html4all web master. He along with Gregory Rosmaita are the resident experts of Wikis and Wikimedia. I've been trying to learn as I go along :-) If you have questions please don't be shy about asking. Best Regards, Laura -- Laura L. Carlson From gez.lemon at gmail.com Tue Oct 23 15:24:35 2007 From: gez.lemon at gmail.com (Gez Lemon) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 23:24:35 +0100 Subject: [html4all] Omitting alt Attribute for Critical Content Wiki page In-Reply-To: <20071023142114.M81102@ieee.org> References: <1c8dbcaa0710171032j59f6a225x7c05ad3d0134eba4@mail.gmail.com> <20071023142114.M81102@ieee.org> Message-ID: Hi Harry, On 23/10/2007, Harry Loots wrote: > The current listed "Solutions" i believe should be: > > 1. User enters attribute "_none" (alt="_none"). This entered value signifies a > conscious decision by the author that the associated image's alt attribute > should be empty. > > 2. Authoring tool (CMS) enters value "_omit" (or other) to signify that the > content editor has omitted alt attribute. This is the equivalent generated > value to hand-coded _none. (By providing this ability we make a clear > distinction between user entered and Authoring Tool generated.). > > 3. Authoring tool (CMS) enters value "_ignored". This generated value > signifies that content editor ignored the alt attribute. >From a markup perspective, it would be strange for a data type to be %Text with a few exceptions ("_none", "_omit", "_ignored", or any other predefined value). It's possible that the data type could be %Text with notes about predefined values for conformance, but that still results in name space pollution; if an author wanted to use "_none", or any other of the proposed values, they wouldn't be able to, as those values would have a predefined meaning. As unlikely as that scenario might be, it's not unthinkable that someone might want to specify alternate text of "_none", and I think an author should be able to do so. I don't agree that it's acceptable to reserve special meanings to certain phrases when mixed with %Text. Personally, I see this whole issue in terms of areas of responsibility. A markup language simply needs to make it possible to specify alternate text for non-text objects, and the definition of the alt attribute in HTML 4.01 does exactly that. It's the content author's responsibility to provide alternate text, and authoring tools should make it easy for content authors to provide alternate text. Relaxing the rules about whether or not alternate text is required (no matter how it's dressed up) doesn't help accessibility - it's ultimately just a get-out clause for poor content-management systems and/or lazy content authors. A markup language should require alternate text for non-text objects; authoring tools should make it easy to provide alternate text for non-text objects, and content authors should be educated to want to provide alternate text for non-text objects. "Too much time for too little benefit" just isn't acceptable. Entertaining the notion that alternate text is too difficult to provide for too little benefit isn't really helping anyone, other than poor authoring tools and/or lazy content authors. Best regards, Gez -- _____________________________ Supplement your vitamins http://juicystudio.com From faulkner.steve at gmail.com Wed Oct 24 00:41:37 2007 From: faulkner.steve at gmail.com (Steven Faulkner) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 08:41:37 +0100 Subject: [html4all] Omitting alt Attribute for Critical Content Wiki page In-Reply-To: References: <1c8dbcaa0710171032j59f6a225x7c05ad3d0134eba4@mail.gmail.com> <20071023142114.M81102@ieee.org> Message-ID: <55687cf80710240041v2b0bd19frf9701b9f0b9f1035@mail.gmail.com> Hi Gez, I do think there are situations where the user will not provide (although they should) alt texts. the example cited in the HTML 5 spec is that of bulk uploads to photosites. What is to be done in this case? On 23/10/2007, Gez Lemon wrote: > Hi Harry, > > On 23/10/2007, Harry Loots wrote: > > The current listed "Solutions" i believe should be: > > > > 1. User enters attribute "_none" (alt="_none"). This entered value signifies a > > conscious decision by the author that the associated image's alt attribute > > should be empty. > > > > 2. Authoring tool (CMS) enters value "_omit" (or other) to signify that the > > content editor has omitted alt attribute. This is the equivalent generated > > value to hand-coded _none. (By providing this ability we make a clear > > distinction between user entered and Authoring Tool generated.). > > > > 3. Authoring tool (CMS) enters value "_ignored". This generated value > > signifies that content editor ignored the alt attribute. > > >From a markup perspective, it would be strange for a data type to be > %Text with a few exceptions ("_none", "_omit", "_ignored", or any > other predefined value). It's possible that the data type could be > %Text with notes about predefined values for conformance, but that > still results in name space pollution; if an author wanted to use > "_none", or any other of the proposed values, they wouldn't be able > to, as those values would have a predefined meaning. As unlikely as > that scenario might be, it's not unthinkable that someone might want > to specify alternate text of "_none", and I think an author should be > able to do so. I don't agree that it's acceptable to reserve special > meanings to certain phrases when mixed with %Text. > > Personally, I see this whole issue in terms of areas of > responsibility. A markup language simply needs to make it possible to > specify alternate text for non-text objects, and the definition of the > alt attribute in HTML 4.01 does exactly that. It's the content > author's responsibility to provide alternate text, and authoring tools > should make it easy for content authors to provide alternate text. > Relaxing the rules about whether or not alternate text is required (no > matter how it's dressed up) doesn't help accessibility - it's > ultimately just a get-out clause for poor content-management systems > and/or lazy content authors. A markup language should require > alternate text for non-text objects; authoring tools should make it > easy to provide alternate text for non-text objects, and content > authors should be educated to want to provide alternate text for > non-text objects. "Too much time for too little benefit" just isn't > acceptable. Entertaining the notion that alternate text is too > difficult to provide for too little benefit isn't really helping > anyone, other than poor authoring tools and/or lazy content authors. > > > Best regards, > > > Gez > > > > > -- > _____________________________ > Supplement your vitamins > http://juicystudio.com > > _______________________________________________ > List_HTML4all.org mailing list > http://www.html4all.org/wiki > -- 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 From gez.lemon at gmail.com Wed Oct 24 01:17:06 2007 From: gez.lemon at gmail.com (Gez Lemon) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 09:17:06 +0100 Subject: [html4all] Omitting alt Attribute for Critical Content Wiki page In-Reply-To: <55687cf80710240041v2b0bd19frf9701b9f0b9f1035@mail.gmail.com> References: <1c8dbcaa0710171032j59f6a225x7c05ad3d0134eba4@mail.gmail.com> <20071023142114.M81102@ieee.org> <55687cf80710240041v2b0bd19frf9701b9f0b9f1035@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Steve, On 24/10/2007, Steven Faulkner wrote: > I do think there are situations where the user will not provide > (although they should) alt texts. the example cited in the HTML 5 spec > is that of bulk uploads to photosites. What is to be done in this > case? I don't think there is a markup solution to this problem. The best that could be determined would be that the alt text is intentionally not provided, so it becomes the user agent's responsibility to use repair techniques to provide the alternate. Even if image recognition comes along in leaps and bounds, it's unlikely that the important parts of the image will be relayed concisely to the user. Bulk uploads should prompt for alternate text - it should be a requirement. Personally, I don't think it's ever excusable to load inaccessible content to the web, and we don't need a markup language to excuse missing accessibility content under certain circumstances, as it will just be abused. Cheers, Gez -- _____________________________ Supplement your vitamins http://juicystudio.com From aurelien.levy at free.fr Wed Oct 24 01:41:05 2007 From: aurelien.levy at free.fr (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?aur=E9lien_levy?=) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 10:41:05 +0200 Subject: [html4all] Omitting alt Attribute for Critical Content Wiki page In-Reply-To: <55687cf80710240041v2b0bd19frf9701b9f0b9f1035@mail.gmail.com> References: <1c8dbcaa0710171032j59f6a225x7c05ad3d0134eba4@mail.gmail.com> <20071023142114.M81102@ieee.org> <55687cf80710240041v2b0bd19frf9701b9f0b9f1035@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <471F0521.9050804@free.fr> Hi, I am not Gez but here is my opinion on that subject : I think the flicker example is a wrong argument because it's not a really problem to have a an empty alt the only concern is if the photo is in a link to download it. Otherwise we already have meta data like tags and title and description. Flickr is used as a photo sharing website so I can use it with two different goals : - search photo with a specific word to download it - search photo with a specific word to look at it - look and or download my friend photo If I don't provide meta data on my photo nobody can reach it, if the photo have meta data and is in a link to download it I have to put in the alt something like "download this picture - jpg - xx Ko" because the meta data are already on the page and there is only one picture by page. In the case where user want to "look" at photo my only concern is not to have an alt it's to have a good meta data description and good description must be used with longdesc and longdesc can link to an #description anchor where the description is in the page. For the alt I just can take title, tags, or generic word as "photo" If I don't provide description blind user can't "look" at the picture but at minimum they can know the subject of the photo with tags or title and if they just really want to "look" they will go on picture who have a good description. (Flickr can provide a search form who search only in the description meta data to help that) Aur?lien Levy > Hi Gez, > I do think there are situations where the user will not provide > (although they should) alt texts. the example cited in the HTML 5 spec > is that of bulk uploads to photosites. What is to be done in this > case? From Philip-and-LeKhanh at Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org Wed Oct 24 01:43:38 2007 From: Philip-and-LeKhanh at Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org (Philip TAYLOR) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 09:43:38 +0100 Subject: [html4all] Omitting alt Attribute for Critical Content Wiki page In-Reply-To: References: <1c8dbcaa0710171032j59f6a225x7c05ad3d0134eba4@mail.gmail.com> <20071023142114.M81102@ieee.org> <55687cf80710240041v2b0bd19frf9701b9f0b9f1035@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <471F05BA.2000608@Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org> Prompting for ALT text for bulk uploads is clearly problematic (an algorithmic proposal would be interesting to read) and I wonder how others would feel if, once all efforts had been made to extract the relevant ALT text from the uploader and these had failed, boiler-plate ALT text were to be inserted by the host reading (say) "Image uploaded on dd-mmm-yyyy by nnnn; no ALT text supplied". ** Phil. From gez.lemon at gmail.com Wed Oct 24 01:57:24 2007 From: gez.lemon at gmail.com (Gez Lemon) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 09:57:24 +0100 Subject: [html4all] Omitting alt Attribute for Critical Content Wiki page In-Reply-To: <471F05BA.2000608@Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org> References: <1c8dbcaa0710171032j59f6a225x7c05ad3d0134eba4@mail.gmail.com> <20071023142114.M81102@ieee.org> <55687cf80710240041v2b0bd19frf9701b9f0b9f1035@mail.gmail.com> <471F05BA.2000608@Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org> Message-ID: Hi Phil, On 24/10/2007, Philip TAYLOR wrote: > Prompting for ALT text for bulk uploads > is clearly problematic (an algorithmic > proposal would be interesting to read) > and I wonder how others would feel if, > once all efforts had been made to extract > the relevant ALT text from the uploader > and these had failed, boiler-plate ALT > text were to be inserted by the host > reading (say) "Image uploaded on dd-mmm-yyyy by > nnnn; no ALT text supplied". I agree, and it comes back to areas of responsibility; it makes perfect sense for the authoring tool to do what it can to get the information from the content author. It's the content author's responsibility to provide that information, but if they fail to provide the information, it's better that the authoring tool uses repair techniques, as they're more likely to understand the context. If generic attributes such as labelledby and describedby are adopted from ARIA, then the authoring tool could point to titles and descriptions when provided. Cheers, Gez -- _____________________________ Supplement your vitamins http://juicystudio.com From joshue.oconnor at cfit.ie Wed Oct 24 03:27:45 2007 From: joshue.oconnor at cfit.ie (Joshue O Connor) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 11:27:45 +0100 Subject: [html4all] Omitting alt Attribute for Critical Content Wiki page In-Reply-To: References: <1c8dbcaa0710171032j59f6a225x7c05ad3d0134eba4@mail.gmail.com> <20071023142114.M81102@ieee.org> <55687cf80710240041v2b0bd19frf9701b9f0b9f1035@mail.gmail.com> <471F05BA.2000608@Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org> Message-ID: <471F1E21.6070709@cfit.ie> Hi all, This is a really interesting discussion. I also agree with Phil that an algorithmic proposal for large amounts of content is an interesting one. It could certainly be helped by parsing available metadata provided by the author. Use of generic attributes like labelledby and describedby, seem to me, like a way of future proofing the solution. This has been on my mind as I don't want to argue for a solution that may not be ideal and only solves a short term problem. Gez's point about where responsibility lies is also noteworthy as this is something that is easy to misunderstand. For example, if the user agent when it encounters missing alt text and defaults to heuristics, had a better algorithm, and authors used more context sensitive and relevant file names then this /could/ result in better screen reader output and user comprehension. This is of course a big problem for CMS's or large web applications that dynamically generate file names etc, but it's not IMO off the wall to suggest that the way this is done could be improved. So if the repair method could be also improved, along with user agent heuristics then the markup language. in principle, does not have to go down a wrong road which could itself cause greater problems in the future. I am not saying this /is/ the case but wish to point out that we need to be aware of describing solutions to a short term problem that could have a more negative impact in the long run. So on the foot of that. It's very interesting to me to try and understand the limitations of using a namespaced solution only to this issue. Josh From harry.loots at ieee.org Wed Oct 24 06:16:37 2007 From: harry.loots at ieee.org (Harry Loots) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 14:16:37 +0100 Subject: [html4all] Omitting alt Attribute for Critical Content Wiki page In-Reply-To: <471F1E21.6070709@cfit.ie> References: <1c8dbcaa0710171032j59f6a225x7c05ad3d0134eba4@mail.gmail.com> <20071023142114.M81102@ieee.org> <55687cf80710240041v2b0bd19frf9701b9f0b9f1035@mail.gmail.com> <471F05BA.2000608@Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org> <471F1E21.6070709@cfit.ie> Message-ID: <20071024131637.M49210@ieee.org> Thanks all for the comments to date. Let there be no doubt that i agree one hundred per cent with the philosophy that entering meaningful information is the responsibility of the editor. Though it may not be obvious, it is with editor responsibility in mind that i suggested the additional 'reserved' values for the alt attribute. (This attribute value would be part of the CMS workstream.) As an editor i would have to physically take action to select _omit. I'd do this because i have not added a description for alt, because the description or title already tells the full story about the image (eg: Company Name appears adjacent company logo - logo contains company name; or the image is purely of the 'gratuitous' type). If i, the editor responsible for this page/section, ignore this completely then _ignore is entered - in other words i'm telling the world that 'i could not be bothered'. This too would require a conscious act. Brave or stupid it may be, but i am exercising a choice. I'll comment separately on CMS algorithms etc - but think a separate thread may be useful. Regards Harry From Philip-and-LeKhanh at Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org Wed Oct 24 06:27:58 2007 From: Philip-and-LeKhanh at Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org (Philip TAYLOR) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 14:27:58 +0100 Subject: [html4all] Omitting alt Attribute for Critical Content Wiki page In-Reply-To: <20071024131637.M49210@ieee.org> References: <1c8dbcaa0710171032j59f6a225x7c05ad3d0134eba4@mail.gmail.com> <20071023142114.M81102@ieee.org> <55687cf80710240041v2b0bd19frf9701b9f0b9f1035@mail.gmail.com> <471F05BA.2000608@Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org> <471F1E21.6070709@cfit.ie> <20071024131637.M49210@ieee.org> Message-ID: <471F485E.7010706@Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org> I (for one) agree that a small set of reserved values for ALT is potentially the best solution; I /believe/ that the idea was previously floated by John Foliot (please correct me if I'm wrong). ** Phil. From harry.loots at ieee.org Wed Oct 24 11:29:56 2007 From: harry.loots at ieee.org (Harry Loots) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 19:29:56 +0100 Subject: [html4all] Public consultation on Delivering Inclusive Websites (TG102) Message-ID: <20071024182956.M18993@ieee.org> Dear all the document i mentioned yesterday (circulated by UK Public Sector Forums) is in fact part of a consultation by the Cabinet Office in order to revise Chapter 2.4 of the Guidelines for UK Government Websites. Full article and documents here: http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/government_it/web_guidelines/consultations.aspx Is this something we would like to tackle as a group? ie form small working groups to tackle sections of the document and comment (by 16 November). Regards Harry mob: +44 (0) 794 034 3919 ~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~ Good judgement comes from experience. Experience, of course, is the result of poor judgement. - Geoff Tabin From laura.lee.carlson at gmail.com Thu Oct 25 07:13:24 2007 From: laura.lee.carlson at gmail.com (Laura Carlson) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 09:13:24 -0500 Subject: [html4all] Public consultation on Delivering Inclusive Websites (TG102) In-Reply-To: <20071024182956.M18993@ieee.org> References: <20071024182956.M18993@ieee.org> Message-ID: <1c8dbcaa0710250713i4afe9d95t99bc3953f74b1532@mail.gmail.com> Thanks for the link, Harry. > Is this something we would like to tackle as a group? ie form small > working groups to tackle sections of the document and comment (by 16 > November). The html4all founders group [1] is working on specific goals and objectives and figuring out what is in scope for html4all space. So your question is a bit premature, to answer. Please stay tuned. :-) We just recently agreed on the mission [2] of this group. It is centered around ensuring that future generations of HTML will be accessible and will strengthen semantics. However, accessibility folks, especially UK people may be very interested in helping you out in your proposal. I encourage you in your most worthy pursuit. Best Regards, Laura [1] http://html4all.org/wiki/index.php/Inaugural_Members [2] http://html4all.org/wiki/index.php/Mission_Statement From vlad.alexander at xstandard.com Thu Oct 25 07:44:29 2007 From: vlad.alexander at xstandard.com (Vlad Alexander (XStandard)) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 10:44:29 -0400 Subject: [html4all] Mission statement: equal versus equitable Message-ID: The mission statement reads: "Support equal access for people ..." If there was a discussion about using "equal" versus "equitable", can someone summarize it for me? I bring this up because there is a difference between the terms and many organizations including the Canadian government are opting for the term "equitable" as in this phrase: "... ensuring equitable access to all content ..." http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/clf-nsi/inter/inter-01-00_e.asp Regards, -Vlad From P.Taylor at Rhul.Ac.Uk Thu Oct 25 07:49:24 2007 From: P.Taylor at Rhul.Ac.Uk (Philip Taylor (Webmaster)) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 15:49:24 +0100 Subject: [html4all] Mission statement: equal versus equitable In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4720ACF4.6010703@Rhul.Ac.Uk> From Answers.Com (simplified) : Equal : 1. Having the same privileges, status, or rights: equal before the law. 2. Being the same for all members of a group 3. Impartial; just; equitable. Equitable : Marked by or having equity; just and impartial. I personally prefer "equal", because anything other than "equal" can be interpreted as "less than equal", but others have an equally valid justification for preferring "equivalent" and/or "equitable". ** Phil. -------- Vlad Alexander (XStandard) wrote: > The mission statement reads: > > "Support equal access for people ..." > > If there was a discussion about using "equal" versus "equitable", can someone summarize it for me? > > I bring this up because there is a difference between the terms and many organizations including the Canadian government are opting for the term "equitable" as in this phrase: > > "... ensuring equitable access to all content ..." > http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/clf-nsi/inter/inter-01-00_e.asp > > Regards, > -Vlad > > > > > _______________________________________________ > List_HTML4all.org mailing list > http://www.html4all.org/wiki From laura.lee.carlson at gmail.com Thu Oct 25 08:26:57 2007 From: laura.lee.carlson at gmail.com (Laura Carlson) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 10:26:57 -0500 Subject: [html4all] Mission statement: equal versus equitable In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1c8dbcaa0710250826u5dac83c3s2533a4bbac18f5dc@mail.gmail.com> Hi Vlad, > If there was a discussion about using "equal" versus "equitable", can > someone summarize it for me? Yes, funny you should ask that. I had used "equivalent" at first because I was swayed a long time ago by Joe Clark's manifesto where he said, "Equality is a misnomer. Equivalency is the goal." [1]. I have used Joe's point time and time again, when people argue saying that it is impossible to provide alt text because no words will ever equal their photo, or graphic, or artwork. My argument is that, no it won't be "equal" and send them to Joe's Manifesto. The thing is most people are not aware of Joe's logic. It was pointed to me by someone quite wise (thank you Cathrine), that equality is the true goal and equivalence is a means to achieve it. And that equality an ideal that is firmly established in human consciousness. Best Regards, Laura [1] http://joeclark.org/book/sashay/serialization/AccessManifesto.html#p-610 From P.Taylor at Rhul.Ac.Uk Thu Oct 25 08:27:23 2007 From: P.Taylor at Rhul.Ac.Uk (Philip Taylor (Webmaster)) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 16:27:23 +0100 Subject: [html4all] Accessible to whom (or to which groups) ? Message-ID: <4720B5DB.6090902@Rhul.Ac.Uk> Following the links from the page cited by Vlad : http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/clf-nsi/inter/inter-01-00_e.asp I was intrigued (and, I admit, surprised) to find that both WCAG 1.0 and WCAG 2.0 (Draft) both unashamedly state that the underlying aim [of the accessibility guidelines] is to : 1.0 : [Make web] content accessible to people with disabilities. 2.0 : [Make web] accessible to a wider range of people with disabilities [...] and despite my unswering belief in the importance of accessibility, I confess to feeling uneasy that these key documents clearly define the role of the guidelines as making web content accessible to those with disabilities. My belief is (and always has been) that "accessibility" is about making web content accessible to all, not just to those with disabilities, and I'd be interested to hear the opinions of others on this (rather central, and almost certainly contentious) point. ** Phil. From P.Taylor at Rhul.Ac.Uk Thu Oct 25 08:32:37 2007 From: P.Taylor at Rhul.Ac.Uk (Philip Taylor (Webmaster)) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 16:32:37 +0100 Subject: [html4all] Accessible to whom (or to which groups) ? In-Reply-To: <4720B5DB.6090902@Rhul.Ac.Uk> References: <4720B5DB.6090902@Rhul.Ac.Uk> Message-ID: <4720B715.30900@Rhul.Ac.Uk> Typos identified and corrected : > 2.0 : [Make web] content accessible to a wider range of people with disabilities [...] > and despite my unswerving belief in the importance of ** Phil. From laura.lee.carlson at gmail.com Thu Oct 25 09:33:40 2007 From: laura.lee.carlson at gmail.com (Laura Carlson) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 11:33:40 -0500 Subject: [html4all] Accessible to whom (or to which groups) ? In-Reply-To: <4720B5DB.6090902@Rhul.Ac.Uk> References: <4720B5DB.6090902@Rhul.Ac.Uk> Message-ID: <1c8dbcaa0710250933q4f84359bh26350d222d8042e8@mail.gmail.com> Hi Phil, Universality verses accessibility has been a hot topic, Phil. Both Gez [1] and Roger [2] wrote about it last year. My take is that both are needed. Like Tim Berners-Lee said in his all too famous quote, "The power of the Web is in its universality. Access by everyone regardless of disability is an essential aspect." Best Regards, Laura [1] The Great Accessibility Camp-Out http://accessites.org/site/2006/10/the-great-accessibility-camp-out/ [2] Barrier-free Web design, a.k.a. Web accessibility 2.0 http://www.456bereastreet.com/archive/200610/barrierfree_web_design_aka_web_accessibility_20/ Related Universality Verses Accessibility References: http://www.boagworld.com/archives/2005/06/accessibility_debates_more_harm_than_good.html http://alastairc.ac/2007/02/accessibility-vs-universality-implications/ http://www.isolani.co.uk/blog/access/BarCampLondon2AccessibilityPanelThoughts -- Laura L. Carlson From gez.lemon at gmail.com Thu Oct 25 12:49:57 2007 From: gez.lemon at gmail.com (Gez Lemon) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 20:49:57 +0100 Subject: [html4all] Accessible to whom (or to which groups) ? In-Reply-To: <4720B5DB.6090902@Rhul.Ac.Uk> References: <4720B5DB.6090902@Rhul.Ac.Uk> Message-ID: Philip Taylor (Webmaster) wrote: I was intrigued (and, I admit, surprised) to find that both WCAG 1.0 and WCAG 2.0 (Draft) both unashamedly state that the underlying aim [of the accessibility guidelines] is to : 1.0 : [Make web] content accessible to people with disabilities. 2.0 : [Make web] accessible to a wider range of people with disabilities [...] Why should they feel ashamed? My belief is (and always has been) that "accessibility" is about making web content accessible to all, not just to those with disabilities, and I'd be interested to hear the opinions of others on this (rather central, and almost certainly contentious) point. Universality and "access for all" are generic terms used to ensure that content is available to everyone, regardless of the device, platform, network, culture, geographic location, or physical or mental ability of those using it. Accessibility is a subset of universality (access to all) to ensure that people who cannot readily change an aspect of themselves are not considered a minority when considering the "for all" part of universality/access for all. Laura Carlson wrote: Universality verses accessibility has been a hot topic, Phil. Both Gez [1] and Roger [2] wrote about it last year. Thank you for mentioning it, Laura. This is an article I regret contributing to, as I didn't make my point as well as I could have done. I quite often see my opinion being quoted as, "don't cater for everyone, just cater for people with disabilities". I think it's very sad if that's what people come away with from the article, but then again, I wrote my opinion (if not those words), so I've obviously made my point very very badly. I completely agree with universality and ensuring that content is available to everyone, but accessibility is more important, as it's about people, rather than choices people can make. A couple of weeks after collaborating on this article, Mike suggested a technique that allows IE6 to visually render a tooltip in IE6: HTML When I pointed out that the title attribute needed to be in the abbreviation or assistive technology wouldn't have access, Mike's response was that the proposed technique "served the masses well". In other words, there are more IE6 users than assistive technology users. That is an outrageous response in my opinion, and despite people consistently telling me that they always consider people with disabilities, more often than not, people with disabilities are always way down in their priorities. Mike is a relatively well-known accessibility advocate, yet is prepared to put IE6 users' needs before catering for anyone else, as there are more IE6 users. IE6 users can upgrade to IE7, Firefox, Opera, Safari, and so on; people with disabilities cannot so readily change aspects about themselves. Of course I see the person first, but I definitely don't think that disability is a dirty word, nor a word that should be avoided. I fully support universality, access for all, or any other name that includes everyone, but not at the expense of catering for whims, as opposed to aspects that people cannot change about themselves. I also appreciate that there are other aspects of universality that aren't necessarily whims, such as people in remote locations with poor connectivity, but I wouldn't consider dropping accessibility provisions in order to reduce the size of a page. Gez -- _____________________________ Supplement your vitamins http://juicystudio.com From Philip-and-LeKhanh at Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org Thu Oct 25 13:10:54 2007 From: Philip-and-LeKhanh at Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org (Philip TAYLOR) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 21:10:54 +0100 Subject: [html4all] Accessible to whom (or to which groups) ? In-Reply-To: References: <4720B5DB.6090902@Rhul.Ac.Uk> Message-ID: <4720F84E.8020005@Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org> Gez Lemon wrote: > Why should they feel ashamed? Maybe because it is an insular, parochial, perspective ? Would you be happy to see a similar statement in an analogous document that claims that accessibility is about making web content accessible to black people, or white people, or Muslims, or Jains, or Catholics ? Surely the whole basis of our belief is that the web should be accessible to /all/, not to just one disadvantaged group ? ** Phil. From laura.lee.carlson at gmail.com Thu Oct 25 13:14:20 2007 From: laura.lee.carlson at gmail.com (Laura Carlson) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 15:14:20 -0500 Subject: [html4all] Accessible to whom (or to which groups) ? In-Reply-To: References: <4720B5DB.6090902@Rhul.Ac.Uk> Message-ID: <1c8dbcaa0710251314p6070f257lff241c54a545037c@mail.gmail.com> > Accessibility is a subset of universality (access to all) Interesting perspective, Gez. Veering off topic a little...I've always considered accessibility a prerequisite to usability. If a person can not access a web page he/she certainly can not use it. Best Regards, Laura From laura.lee.carlson at gmail.com Thu Oct 25 13:44:45 2007 From: laura.lee.carlson at gmail.com (Laura Carlson) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 15:44:45 -0500 Subject: [html4all] Accessible to whom (or to which groups) ? In-Reply-To: References: <4720B5DB.6090902@Rhul.Ac.Uk> Message-ID: <1c8dbcaa0710251344g551c5ba8j400e8f26382a856e@mail.gmail.com> Gez wrote: > I fully support universality, access for all, or any other name that > includes everyone, but not at the expense of catering for whims, as > opposed to aspects that people cannot change about themselves. Agreed. The disabled are people who have physical or mental impairments that substantially limit one or more of the major life activities. They can't change it. That's the key point. > appreciate that there are other aspects of universality that aren't > necessarily whims, such as people in remote locations with poor > connectivity, That's me :-) > but I wouldn't consider dropping accessibility > provisions in order to reduce the size of a page. Nor would I. But most of the time accessibility and web standards reduce page size. Best Regards, Laura -- Laura L. Carlson From gez.lemon at gmail.com Thu Oct 25 13:52:37 2007 From: gez.lemon at gmail.com (Gez Lemon) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 21:52:37 +0100 Subject: [html4all] Accessible to whom (or to which groups) ? In-Reply-To: <4720F84E.8020005@Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org> References: <4720B5DB.6090902@Rhul.Ac.Uk> <4720F84E.8020005@Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org> Message-ID: On 25/10/2007, Philip TAYLOR wrote: > Maybe because it is an insular, parochial, > perspective ? Would you be happy to see > a similar statement in an analogous document > that claims that accessibility is about making > web content accessible to black people, or > white people, or Muslims, or Jains, or Catholics ? > Surely the whole basis of our belief is that > the web should be accessible to /all/, not to > just one disadvantaged group ? We're not comparing like with like. If an individual or group was racist, I would most definitely make a stand against them. Whether you like it or not, people with disabilities are not treated the same as those without on the web. Religion and ethnicity tend not to be locked out, as they don't necessarily determine the person's mode of operation. Please read the rest of my previous reply to try and understand the point I was trying to make (although I'm obviously making it very badly). People with disabilities cannot choose to improve their sensory, mobility, or cognitive abilities at will, whereas other constraints that come under universality can be changed (such as browser, network, and so on; at least to some extent). Disability is not a dirty word, and is not a word that should be avoided when talking about access for all on the web. Gez -- _____________________________ Supplement your vitamins http://juicystudio.com From gez.lemon at gmail.com Thu Oct 25 13:53:18 2007 From: gez.lemon at gmail.com (Gez Lemon) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 21:53:18 +0100 Subject: [html4all] Accessible to whom (or to which groups) ? In-Reply-To: <1c8dbcaa0710251314p6070f257lff241c54a545037c@mail.gmail.com> References: <4720B5DB.6090902@Rhul.Ac.Uk> <1c8dbcaa0710251314p6070f257lff241c54a545037c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Laura, On 25/10/2007, Laura Carlson wrote: > Interesting perspective, Gez. > > Veering off topic a little...I've always considered accessibility a > prerequisite to usability. If a person can not access a web page > he/she certainly can not use it. I would completely agree. The difference to me is whether or not the person has been blocked access through things they can change (such as upgrading from Netscape 4 to a better browser) or through things they cannot readily change (such as being able to use a pointing device). Best regards, Gez -- _____________________________ Supplement your vitamins http://juicystudio.com From P.Taylor at Rhul.Ac.Uk Thu Oct 25 14:23:13 2007 From: P.Taylor at Rhul.Ac.Uk (Philip Taylor (Webmaster)) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 22:23:13 +0100 Subject: [html4all] Accessible to whom (or to which groups) ? In-Reply-To: References: <4720B5DB.6090902@Rhul.Ac.Uk> <4720F84E.8020005@Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org> Message-ID: <47210941.4090909@Rhul.Ac.Uk> Gez Lemon wrote: > On 25/10/2007, Philip TAYLOR > wrote: >> Maybe because it is an insular, parochial, >> perspective ? Would you be happy to see >> a similar statement in an analogous document >> that claims that accessibility is about making >> web content accessible to black people, or >> white people, or Muslims, or Jains, or Catholics ? >> Surely the whole basis of our belief is that >> the web should be accessible to /all/, not to >> just one disadvantaged group ? > > We're not comparing like with like. I was trying to, Gez. In some societies, Muslims are an oppressed minority; in another, black people (and so on). You /might/ argue that a Muslim could elect to become non-Muslim if he or she so chose (but I don't think you would); you couldn't argue that a black person can elect to become non-black. So Muslims, black people and people with disabilities are all second-class citizens in some societies. But I think that neither you nor I would want to be argue that any of these should be given /special/ treatment : rather, I (and I think you) would argue that all should be treated equally, regardless of race, creed, colour or disability. And that is why I dislike the divisive language of WCAG 1.0 and WCAG 2.0 : I would like all of us who believe in equality and equitability of treatment to state that we believe that the web should be accessible to /all/, not just to one particular group. ** Phil. From joshue.oconnor at cfit.ie Thu Oct 25 14:51:54 2007 From: joshue.oconnor at cfit.ie (Joshue O Connor) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 22:51:54 +0100 Subject: [html4all] Accessible to whom (or to which groups) ? In-Reply-To: <4720F84E.8020005@Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org> References: <4720B5DB.6090902@Rhul.Ac.Uk> <4720F84E.8020005@Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org> Message-ID: <47210FFA.5030807@cfit.ie> Hi Phil, Philip Taylor (Webmaster) wrote: > > I was intrigued (and, I admit, surprised) to find that > both WCAG 1.0 and WCAG 2.0 (Draft) both unashamedly state > that the underlying aim [of the accessibility guidelines] > is to : > > 1.0 : [Make web] content accessible to people with disabilities. > 2.0 : [Make web] accessible to a wider range of people with > disabilities [...] > Gez wrote: >Why should they feel ashamed? Philip Taylor (Webmaster) wrote: > Maybe because it is an insular, parochial, > perspective ? It's not insular nor parochial at all. WCAG answered a very real need. People with disabilities were being left behind as web technologies evolved. So WCAG was a real answer to a real need. Using politically correct language (to talk about as Gez mentions 'generic' terms like 'universality' etc as that's what they are, merely generic terms) was not the way to go. At least not the road to travel to come up with real solutions for real issues that impacted positively on the lives of people with disabilities. >Would you be happy to see > a similar statement in an analogous document > that claims that accessibility is about making > web content accessible to black people, or > white people, or Muslims, or Jains, or Catholics ? Of course not. That's ridiculous and, I am sorry, but in this context also facetious. > Surely the whole basis of our belief is that > the web should be accessible to /all/, not to > just one disadvantaged group ? Of course. However, it's not something that will just *happen*. No matter how science may consciously or unconsciously hold the belief (though it unscientific to talk to belief, right?) of blind progressive Darwinian evolution as a plausible explanation for mans development I think it is reasonable to suggest that any working system has a designer, an architect who oversees how a system evolves. There are therefore parallels with technology, if not even some deeper analogous connections. What I am trying to say is that, the devil is in the details. How, will it work exactly? While using terms like 'universality' and 'design for all' etc sound great. What do they really mean and how will they work? I am a rational person and by professional a technical one, so therefore every idea that is to fly has some technical rational to back it up, or else logic dictates that it will not work properly. It is the same with accessibility. I don't have a problem with the idea that accessibility is primarily about making interfaces etc accessible to people with disabilities. This gives me a specific point of reference to work from. Of course, I include everyone in the /ideal/ catchment but again the devil is in the details, and those that most need accessible user interfaces and benefit from structured content etc are often the most vulnerable, are users of assistive technology that needs correct semantics etc and also the ones who, when there is a lack of these things, are negatively effected the most. Josh From P.Taylor at Rhul.Ac.Uk Thu Oct 25 15:07:54 2007 From: P.Taylor at Rhul.Ac.Uk (Philip Taylor (Webmaster)) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 23:07:54 +0100 Subject: [html4all] Accessible to whom (or to which groups) ? In-Reply-To: <47210FFA.5030807@cfit.ie> References: <4720B5DB.6090902@Rhul.Ac.Uk> <4720F84E.8020005@Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org> <47210FFA.5030807@cfit.ie> Message-ID: <472113BA.406@Rhul.Ac.Uk> Joshue O Connor wrote: >> Would you be happy to see >> a similar statement in an analogous document >> that claims that accessibility is about making >> web content accessible to black people, or >> white people, or Muslims, or Jains, or Catholics ? > > Of course not. That's ridiculous and, I am sorry, but in this context > also facetious. It was not intended to be facetious : rather it was intended to illustrate the point that by singling out any one group as deserving of special treatment, we are automatically devaluing all other groups. But my real point is that the language used in the introductory prose of WCAG 1.0 and 2.0 is /divisive/ when it should be /inclusive/ : if accessibility is to become a reality, then we need to /encourage/ people to subscribe to the philosophy, and I believe we will only succeed in that when people can see that accessibility is for /them/, not just for the members of some particular group. ** Phil. From harry.loots at ieee.org Thu Oct 25 15:09:12 2007 From: harry.loots at ieee.org (Harry Loots) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 23:09:12 +0100 Subject: [html4all] Accessible to whom (or to which groups) ? In-Reply-To: <47210FFA.5030807@cfit.ie> References: <4720B5DB.6090902@Rhul.Ac.Uk> <4720F84E.8020005@Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org> <47210FFA.5030807@cfit.ie> Message-ID: <20071025220912.M99164@ieee.org> interesting discussion - yet throughout i keep wondering.... Do people with disabilities want to be singled out? Or would they simply wanted to be treated like those of who do not suffer some disability or other? Making a website accessible is just that - if it's accessible it can be used by all person. To mention people with disabilities is to treat people with disabilities as if they are a separate entity in our world. And I think this is where Philip is coming from.... Regards Harry From P.Taylor at Rhul.Ac.Uk Thu Oct 25 15:15:40 2007 From: P.Taylor at Rhul.Ac.Uk (Philip Taylor (Webmaster)) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 23:15:40 +0100 Subject: [html4all] Accessible to whom (or to which groups) ? In-Reply-To: <20071025220912.M99164@ieee.org> References: <4720B5DB.6090902@Rhul.Ac.Uk> <4720F84E.8020005@Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org> <47210FFA.5030807@cfit.ie> <20071025220912.M99164@ieee.org> Message-ID: <4721158C.3040903@Rhul.Ac.Uk> Thanks, Harry : I am genuinely grateful that you (and, I hope, others) can see that I am trying to /include/ disabled people, rather than exclude them. ** Phil. -------- Harry Loots wrote: > interesting discussion - yet throughout i keep wondering.... > > Do people with disabilities want to be singled out? Or would they simply > wanted to be treated like those of who do not suffer some disability or other? > > Making a website accessible is just that - if it's accessible it can be used > by all person. To mention people with disabilities is to treat people with > disabilities as if they are a separate entity in our world. > > And I think this is where Philip is coming from.... > > Regards > Harry > > > > > _______________________________________________ > List_HTML4all.org mailing list > http://www.html4all.org/wiki From joshue.oconnor at cfit.ie Thu Oct 25 15:20:36 2007 From: joshue.oconnor at cfit.ie (Joshue O Connor) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 23:20:36 +0100 Subject: [html4all] Accessible to whom (or to which groups) ? In-Reply-To: <47210941.4090909@Rhul.Ac.Uk> References: <4720B5DB.6090902@Rhul.Ac.Uk> <4720F84E.8020005@Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org> <47210941.4090909@Rhul.Ac.Uk> Message-ID: <472116B4.2040001@cfit.ie> Hi Phil, > And that is > why I dislike the divisive language of WCAG 1.0 and > WCAG 2.0 I never thought of it as divisive. > it was intended > to illustrate the point that by singling out any one group > as deserving of special treatment, we are automatically > devaluing all other groups. I don't even know of that is true. BTW, I am not looking for a fight :-) However, if a group of men climb a mountain and one becomes injured and needs more attention, that does not mean that the other members suddenly become less valuable. > I would like all of us who believe > in equality and equitability of treatment to state > that we believe that the web should be accessible > to /all/, not just to one particular group. And me. But in order to do that minority groups, like people with disabilities, have needs that must be addressed. This takes up time, resources, energy etc and some may say that it is possibly disproportionate, or skewed, if a minority group require extra attention and extra resources. However, this is necessary and in a sane society - the way it should be. Lest we just become solipsistic, selfish, impersonal and uncaring. > if accessibility is to become a reality, then we need > to /encourage/ people to subscribe to the philosophy, > and I believe we will only succeed in that when people > can see that accessibility is for /them/, not just for > the members of some particular group. Sounds good to me Phil. However, I still stand by my previous points. Josh From gez.lemon at gmail.com Thu Oct 25 15:54:49 2007 From: gez.lemon at gmail.com (Gez Lemon) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 23:54:49 +0100 Subject: [html4all] Accessible to whom (or to which groups) ? In-Reply-To: <47210941.4090909@Rhul.Ac.Uk> References: <4720B5DB.6090902@Rhul.Ac.Uk> <4720F84E.8020005@Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org> <47210941.4090909@Rhul.Ac.Uk> Message-ID: Philip Taylor wrote: Gez Lemon wrote: We're not comparing like with like. I was trying to, Gez. In some societies, Muslims are an oppressed minority; in another, black people (and so on). I can absolutely assure you that I'm not bigoted in any way. As an analogy, religion and ethnicity are not equivalent to people with disabilities using the web, as neither religion nor ethnicity determine a person's mode of operation. I would make a stand against anyone being racist, but it's a poor analogy in this instance. I fully support access for all (albeit under the the umbrella of universality, or some equivalent), but I cannot accept that accessibility is about ensuring access to everyone regardless of ability, as there will always be more IE users (or some other aspect that a user can readily change) than people with disabilities. I've seen this argument presented time and time again (I've even presented an example of this in this thread that has been ignored). Access for all (universality) means catering for the majority (all when you can, but the majority when decisions need to be made). I'm happy to cater for all, but I'm prepared to put people with disabilities before those whose browsers don't support the latest version of CSS (or some other avoidable barrier). I wholeheartedly resent that you compare this with people changing their religion or colour (despite the fact you go on to redeem me of this accusation), as it is both patronising and completely misses the broader point. Gez -- _____________________________ Supplement your vitamins http://juicystudio.com From gez.lemon at gmail.com Thu Oct 25 16:00:04 2007 From: gez.lemon at gmail.com (Gez Lemon) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 00:00:04 +0100 Subject: [html4all] Accessible to whom (or to which groups) ? In-Reply-To: <20071025220912.M99164@ieee.org> References: <4720B5DB.6090902@Rhul.Ac.Uk> <4720F84E.8020005@Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org> <47210FFA.5030807@cfit.ie> <20071025220912.M99164@ieee.org> Message-ID: Harry Loots wrote: interesting discussion - yet throughout i keep wondering.... Do people with disabilities want to be singled out? Or would they simply wanted to be treated like those of who do not suffer some disability or other? Making a website accessible is just that - if it's accessible it can be used by all person. To mention people with disabilities is to treat people with disabilities as if they are a separate entity in our world. Of course people with disabilities don't want to be singled out. In an ideal world, people with disabilities wouldn't be singled out. Unfortunately, today's web isn't very accessible to people with disabilities, and it's not all about access for all. Some (most) of the serious barriers relate directly to people with disabilities (missing alternate text for non-text objects, missing abels for form controls, no association between data cells and header cells, missing/ambiguous semantics, and so on). Some of these are issues that can be overcome by people without disabilities, but can cause significant barriers to people using assistive technology. It's great to be politically correct, but that huge mammal with massive ears and a trunk in the middle of the room is an elephant. Gez -- _____________________________ Supplement your vitamins http://juicystudio.com From ecrire at catherine-roy.net Thu Oct 25 19:22:34 2007 From: ecrire at catherine-roy.net (zara) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 22:22:34 -0400 Subject: [html4all] Accessible to whom (or to which groups) ? In-Reply-To: <4720B5DB.6090902@Rhul.Ac.Uk> Message-ID: <0JQH0060QYLNH5F0@VL-MH-MR001.ip.videotron.ca> (...) > My belief is (and always has been) that > "accessibility" > is about making web content accessible to all, not > just > to those with disabilities, and I'd be interested to > hear the opinions of others on this (rather central, > and almost certainly contentious) point. Hi all, Sorry I have been rather silent these last few weeks but I have had a lot on my plate lately. Anyway, I have written about this issue numerous times, whether on various mailing lists or on my blog, etc., and I never thought I would intervene on this subject again and actually, I had promised myself that I would not unless hell froze over. But well, it got kind of chilly here today at some point so I feel I should say something now, though I imagine that some of you already know what my position is on this matter. I am sometimes amused and more often than not annoyed at what other people think (or at times even decide) what we, persons with disabilities, want or think or need. And this discussion, like many other similar ones before it, is a perfect example of that. And while I certainly do not claim to speak for all persons with disabilities (we are a very heterogeneous group after all), I think that, being who I am and doing what I do, I can probably offer a perspective that hopefully should count for something. So to be perfectly unequivocal, while accessibility and universality (and its synonymous terms) are closely related concepts, they are not interchangeable and have specific definitions, goals and objectives. To sum it up: Accessibility is related to how usable a resource is for persons with disabilities, regardless of the type of impairment or the means to overcome or compensate for that impairment. Universal access (or universality, Web for all, etc.) is an ensemble of conditions that relate to availability, connectivity, interoperability, affordability, mobility, culture, accessibility, etc., (some will also add knowledge and training as well as gender issues and as society evolves, it is easy to predict that new considerations or interests are likely to be added to this list). So basically, as someone pointed out, accessibility is a part (I believe the term was ?subset?) of a bigger picture. And, notwithstanding certain inconsistencies that I suspect have more to do with the right hand not always knowing what the left hand is up to as well as certain individuals pushing their own agendas, this is generally what W3C and WAI, among others, have promoted over the years and whole programs, policies and legislations ensuring equal rights for persons with disabilities around the world have been built around this idea. In the course of this discussion, some have alluded to the premise that by making accessibility about persons with disabilities, it amounts to special treatment and can lead to exclusion. I think that we need to see it as not ?special? but as ?different?. Yes I know, it may surprise some people or make them uncomfortable to contemplate it but as a person with disability, I can say, and have no problem saying it, that on certain levels, we are different, that in some areas we have different needs and that there are certain things that need to be done differently to accommodate those needs. Exclusion, as far as I am concerned, comes from not recognising and accepting those differences, rather than from deluding ourselves with the idea that we are all exactly the same. In an earlier discussion on this list, we talked about equivalence (which often relies on different ways of going about things to attain a common goal) sometimes being the road to equality (and therefore, hopefully, inclusion). To me, accessibility is in the same perspective. Some argued their point, if I understood correctly, by offering the example that it would not be appropriate to talk about accessibility as making the Web accessible to certain ethnic or religious minorities. But you know what? I will not even get into that. Because personally, I would simply say that it is not a question of inappropriateness but of just being a very poor analogy. So yes, while, as in other fields, accessibility can in some cases offer certain auxiliary benefits to other populations, blablabla, it most certainly, first and foremost, aims to accommodate persons with disabilities. Simply put, people without disabilities can generally live without it, whereas we generally can not. And I think that is where the importance resides. I am very tired tonight, and generally tired of this discussion, so I hope I have not offended anyone with my directness (or bored anyone with this very long post). But I must say that I am dismayed with this thread, with the fact that we even need to bring it up here. Because while I am certainly not against the confrontation of different points of view, I was under the impression that we started this group because HTML5 was threatening the possibility for many persons with disabilities to access information on the Web by questioning or even scrapping certain accessibility features. That is why I am here. Not to re-debate something that many people in this field of activity will most likely and sadly never agree on but that many persons with disabilities do not question on a very visceral level because practically speaking, they can not afford to. Best regards, Catherine -- Catherine Roy www.catherine-roy.net No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.11/1093 - Release Date: 25/10/2007 5:38 PM From laura.lee.carlson at gmail.com Fri Oct 26 00:09:58 2007 From: laura.lee.carlson at gmail.com (Laura Carlson) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 02:09:58 -0500 Subject: [html4all] Accessible to whom (or to which groups) ? In-Reply-To: <0JQH0060QYLNH5F0@VL-MH-MR001.ip.videotron.ca> References: <4720B5DB.6090902@Rhul.Ac.Uk> <0JQH0060QYLNH5F0@VL-MH-MR001.ip.videotron.ca> Message-ID: <1c8dbcaa0710260009h7ca99314j2bdd6af4c70113d3@mail.gmail.com> Everyone who uses the web is likely have had universality issues and experienced obstacles from time to time. However, as Gez, Catherine, and Josh mentioned, disabled people must frequently overcome additional obstacles before they can enjoy the full range of information, services, entertainment and social interaction offered by the Web: blind people need sites to provide, for example, text as an alternative to images for translation into audible or legible words by specially designed screenreading devices; partially sighted people may be especially reliant upon large-format text and effective color contrast; and people with manual dexterity impairments may need to navigate with a keyboard rather than with a mouse. The disabled can't change these needs. Something to keep in mind is that to people who are disabled, accessibility means web page information/content being obtainable and functional. It is not added value. It is basic. Nevertheless, accessibility and universality and are not enemies. They could, and should, be best friends. Universality and accessibility have different though not incompatible design philosophies and goals. They may use different but usually compatible methods. Their practitioners share concerns for improving the user experience, though they may have different sets of users in mind. Phil mentioned that for accessibility to be successful, people who are not disabled may need to see that accessibility is for them. The "designing for accessibility is good design practice" is in fact a good selling point. It emphasizes the importance of considering users' access capabilities as a part of user-focused design. It is indeed an auxiliary benefit [1] when trying to convince people of the importance of accessibility. Accessible design is good design for everyone. Focusing on the possibility of conflicts between accessibility and universality is a red herring. The real challenge in is not deciding which should trump the other, but in understanding requirements and finding a way for the next generation of HTML to meet needs. People need to collaborate. We each have knowledge and skills that will benefit each other. This is something filled with challenges. It's something that intelligent and reasonable people can disagree about. Though I think we actually agree more than disagree. There's more than one right way to do something. And sometimes there are no clear cut answers. Although some answers are usually be better than others. :-) With some creative and flexible thinking maybe...just maybe...we can help improve the next generation of HTML for people with disabilities right along with universality for all users. Let's give it out best. Best Regards, Laura [1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/bcase/benefits.html#marketshare From aurelien.levy at free.fr Sat Oct 27 01:36:06 2007 From: aurelien.levy at free.fr (=?UTF-8?B?YXVyw6lsaWVuIGxldnk=?=) Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 10:36:06 +0200 Subject: [html4all] phonetic of some word or name Message-ID: <4722F876.7010308@free.fr> Hi, I have a suggestion to do : did you think as me that it can be useful to have a new html element to markup phonetic pronunciation of a word or name. It can be useful for name, japanese kanji, word with the same orthography but different pronunciation like in French : "il est de l'est" (in english : he is from east) il est [?] de l'est [?st] Aur?lien From gez.lemon at gmail.com Sat Oct 27 02:56:08 2007 From: gez.lemon at gmail.com (Gez Lemon) Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 10:56:08 +0100 Subject: [html4all] phonetic of some word or name In-Reply-To: <4722F876.7010308@free.fr> References: <4722F876.7010308@free.fr> Message-ID: Hi Aur?lien, On 27/10/2007, aur?lien levy wrote: > I have a suggestion to do : > did you think as me that it can be useful to have a new html element to > markup phonetic pronunciation of a word or name. I agree that's a good idea. A Japanese friend told me that he uses the Ruby Annotation Model [1] from the XHTML 1.1 suite to provide phonetic pronunciations. The downside is that it's only rendered correctly in IE (from IE5, I think), and IE doesn't support the correct MIME type for XHTML 1.1. But maybe Ruby notation could be incorporated in HTML 5 (at least it's a cowpath that leads to somewhere useful). [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/ruby/ Gez -- _____________________________ Supplement your vitamins http://juicystudio.com From gez.lemon at gmail.com Sat Oct 27 02:59:20 2007 From: gez.lemon at gmail.com (Gez Lemon) Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 10:59:20 +0100 Subject: [html4all] phonetic of some word or name In-Reply-To: References: <4722F876.7010308@free.fr> Message-ID: Sorry, a correction: I wrote: > The downside is that it's only rendered correctly in > IE (from IE5, I think) I meant to clarify that - it might be supported in other browsers, such as Amaya, but I've only ever seen it rendered correctly in IE. Gez -- _____________________________ Supplement your vitamins http://juicystudio.com From aurelien.levy at free.fr Sat Oct 27 06:29:24 2007 From: aurelien.levy at free.fr (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?aur=E9lien_levy?=) Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 15:29:24 +0200 Subject: [html4all] phonetic of some word or name In-Reply-To: References: <4722F876.7010308@free.fr> Message-ID: <47233D34.7060204@free.fr> Apparently this idea was already in other spec : - css3 speech module http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-speech/#phonetic-props - phoneme element in SSML (Speech Synthesis Markup Language) http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-speech-synthesis11-20070904/#S3.1.10 > > I agree that's a good idea. A Japanese friend told me that he uses the > Ruby Annotation Model [1] from the XHTML 1.1 suite to provide phonetic > pronunciations. The downside is that it's only rendered correctly in > IE (from IE5, I think), and IE doesn't support the correct MIME type > for XHTML 1.1. But maybe Ruby notation could be incorporated in HTML 5 > (at least it's a cowpath that leads to somewhere useful). > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/ruby/ > > > Gez > > > From gez.lemon at gmail.com Sat Oct 27 08:52:18 2007 From: gez.lemon at gmail.com (Gez Lemon) Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 16:52:18 +0100 Subject: [html4all] phonetic of some word or name In-Reply-To: <47233D34.7060204@free.fr> References: <4722F876.7010308@free.fr> <47233D34.7060204@free.fr> Message-ID: Hi Aur?lien, On 27/10/2007, aur?lien levy wrote: > Apparently this idea was already in other spec : > - css3 speech module Which is great for aural devices, but I think it would also be good to have something that could be rendered visually. Gez -- _____________________________ Supplement your vitamins http://juicystudio.com From chaals at opera.com Sat Oct 27 17:04:51 2007 From: chaals at opera.com (Charles McCathieNevile) Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 20:04:51 -0400 Subject: [html4all] phonetic of some word or name In-Reply-To: References: <4722F876.7010308@free.fr> <47233D34.7060204@free.fr> Message-ID: On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 11:52:18 -0400, Gez Lemon wrote: > Hi Aur?lien, > > On 27/10/2007, aur?lien levy wrote: >> Apparently this idea was already in other spec : >> - css3 speech module > > Which is great for aural devices, but I think it would also be good to > have something that could be rendered visually. And as Gez noted, Ruby exists in HTMl spec land already (and in some browsers. Itisn't hard to implement most of it in CSS for opera, although there are some undefined things in the current spec about what happens if content isn't valid. Anne vK has noted this, and may be interested in trying to sort those things out for HTML 5). I would certainly oppose using some different mechanism without seeing a good reason to do so. cheers Chaals -- Charles McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group je parle fran?ais -- hablo espa?ol -- jeg l?rer norsk http://my.opera.com/chaals Try the Kestrel - Opera 9.5 alpha From joshue.oconnor at cfit.ie Mon Oct 29 03:13:47 2007 From: joshue.oconnor at cfit.ie (Joshue O Connor) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 10:13:47 +0000 Subject: [html4all] Accessible to whom (or to which groups) Message-ID: <4725B25B.7090402@cfit.ie> Hi Phil, > And that is > why I dislike the divisive language of WCAG 1.0 and > WCAG 2.0 I never thought of it as divisive. > it was intended > to illustrate the point that by singling out any one group > as deserving of special treatment, we are automatically > devaluing all other groups. I don't even know of that is true. BTW, I am not looking for a fight :-) However, if a group of men climb a mountain and one becomes injured and needs more attention, that does not mean that the other members suddenly become less valuable. > I would like all of us who believe > in equality and equitability of treatment to state > that we believe that the web should be accessible > to /all/, not just to one particular group. And me. But in order to do that minority groups, like people with disabilities, have needs that must be addressed. This takes up time, resources, energy etc and some may say that it is possibly disproportionate, or skewed, if a minority group require extra attention and extra resources. However, this is necessary and in a sane society - the way it should be. Lest we just become solipsistic, selfish, impersonal and uncaring. > if accessibility is to become a reality, then we need > to /encourage/ people to subscribe to the philosophy, > and I believe we will only succeed in that when people > can see that accessibility is for /them/, not just for > the members of some particular group. Sounds good to me Phil. However, I still stand by my previous points. Josh From P.Taylor at Rhul.Ac.Uk Mon Oct 29 06:10:42 2007 From: P.Taylor at Rhul.Ac.Uk (Philip Taylor (Webmaster)) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 13:10:42 +0000 Subject: [html4all] Accessible to whom (or to which groups) In-Reply-To: <4725B25B.7090402@cfit.ie> References: <4725B25B.7090402@cfit.ie> Message-ID: <4725DBD2.2080400@Rhul.Ac.Uk> Joshue O Connor wrote: > Hi Phil, > >> And that is >> why I dislike the divisive language of WCAG 1.0 and >> WCAG 2.0 > > I never thought of it as divisive. Let me start by apologising to those whom my previous messages upset, and in particular Laura, whom I know is worried about the possibility of a schism within the group. As I hope has become clear now that the dust has settled, it was never my intention to offend (and certainly not to accuse anyone of racism : it is still unclear to me how anyone could have though otherwise), but rather to point out that -- in my opinion -- it will remain an uphill battle to gain support for the precepts of acessibility all the while there are suggesstions (in some cases, very overt suggestions) that accessibility is "for the benefit of those with disabilities" rather than "for the benefit of all". [...] >> I would like all of us who believe >> in equality and equitability of treatment to state >> that we believe that the web should be accessible >> to /all/, not just to one particular group. > > And me. But in order to do that minority groups, like people with > disabilities, have needs that must be addressed. This takes up time, > resources, energy etc and some may say that it is possibly > disproportionate, or skewed, if a minority group require extra > attention and extra resources. However, this is necessary and in a sane > society - the way it should be. Lest we just become solipsistic, > selfish, impersonal and uncaring. With all of which, I too agree. The problem (IMHO) is that not everyone shares these views, and whilst it might be nice to think we could gain accessibility-for-all through the goodwill of those who /do/ share these views, it is more realistic (IMHO) to accept that we will achieve accessibility-for-all /faster/ if even the non-altruistic can perceive some benefit. ** Phil. From vlad.alexander at xstandard.com Mon Oct 29 06:39:18 2007 From: vlad.alexander at xstandard.com (Vlad Alexander (XStandard)) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 08:39:18 -0500 Subject: [html4all] Accessible to whom (or to which groups) Message-ID: Philip wrote: > it will remain an uphill battle to gain support > for the precepts of acessibility all the while there are > suggesstions ... that accessibility is "for the benefit > of those with disabilities" rather than "for the > benefit of all". I agree with this assessment. Regards, -Vlad -------- Original Message -------- From: Philip Taylor (Webmaster) Date: 2007-10-29 9:10 AM > > Joshue O Connor wrote: >> Hi Phil, >> >>> And that is >>> why I dislike the divisive language of WCAG 1.0 and >>> WCAG 2.0 >> I never thought of it as divisive. > > Let me start by apologising to those whom my previous messages > upset, and in particular Laura, whom I know is worried about > the possibility of a schism within the group. As I hope has > become clear now that the dust has settled, it was never my > intention to offend (and certainly not to accuse anyone of > racism : it is still unclear to me how anyone could have > though otherwise), but rather to point out that -- in my > opinion -- it will remain an uphill battle to gain support > for the precepts of acessibility all the while there are > suggesstions (in some cases, very overt suggestions) that > accessibility is "for the benefit of those with disabilities" > rather than "for the benefit of all". > > [...] > >>> I would like all of us who believe >>> in equality and equitability of treatment to state >>> that we believe that the web should be accessible >>> to /all/, not just to one particular group. >> And me. But in order to do that minority groups, like people with >> disabilities, have needs that must be addressed. This takes up time, >> resources, energy etc and some may say that it is possibly >> disproportionate, or skewed, if a minority group require extra >> attention and extra resources. However, this is necessary and in a sane >> society - the way it should be. Lest we just become solipsistic, >> selfish, impersonal and uncaring. > > With all of which, I too agree. The problem (IMHO) is that > not everyone shares these views, and whilst it might be nice > to think we could gain accessibility-for-all through the > goodwill of those who /do/ share these views, it is more > realistic (IMHO) to accept that we will achieve accessibility-for-all > /faster/ if even the non-altruistic can perceive some benefit. > > ** Phil. > > _______________________________________________ > List_HTML4all.org mailing list > http://www.html4all.org/wiki > From faulkner.steve at gmail.com Mon Oct 29 06:35:01 2007 From: faulkner.steve at gmail.com (Steven Faulkner) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 13:35:01 +0000 Subject: [html4all] Accessible to whom (or to which groups) In-Reply-To: <4725DBD2.2080400@Rhul.Ac.Uk> References: <4725B25B.7090402@cfit.ie> <4725DBD2.2080400@Rhul.Ac.Uk> Message-ID: <55687cf80710290635p2dbfd0d5l7dde6586a05cdeee@mail.gmail.com> Hi Philip, >it will remain an uphill battle to gain support >for the precepts of acessibility all the while there are >suggesstions (in some cases, very overt suggestions) that >accessibility is "for the benefit of those with disabilities" Accessibility is "for the benefit of those with disabilities" that is why the WAI states "The Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) develops strategies, guidelines, and resources to help make the Web accessible to people with disabilities. " This is a viewpoint that I agree with. and it is not an interpretation of accessibility that is confined to myself and the WAI. That is not to say that other people cannot benefit from the measures taken to ensure that the web is accessible to people with disabilities, and in many istances they do. On 29/10/2007, Philip Taylor (Webmaster) wrote: > > > Joshue O Connor wrote: > > Hi Phil, > > > >> And that is > >> why I dislike the divisive language of WCAG 1.0 and > >> WCAG 2.0 > > > > I never thought of it as divisive. > > Let me start by apologising to those whom my previous messages > upset, and in particular Laura, whom I know is worried about > the possibility of a schism within the group. As I hope has > become clear now that the dust has settled, it was never my > intention to offend (and certainly not to accuse anyone of > racism : it is still unclear to me how anyone could have > though otherwise), but rather to point out that -- in my > opinion -- it will remain an uphill battle to gain support > for the precepts of acessibility all the while there are > suggesstions (in some cases, very overt suggestions) that > accessibility is "for the benefit of those with disabilities" > rather than "for the benefit of all". > > [...] > > >> I would like all of us who believe > >> in equality and equitability of treatment to state > >> that we believe that the web should be accessible > >> to /all/, not just to one particular group. > > > > And me. But in order to do that minority groups, like people with > > disabilities, have needs that must be addressed. This takes up time, > > resources, energy etc and some may say that it is possibly > > disproportionate, or skewed, if a minority group require extra > > attention and extra resources. However, this is necessary and in a sane > > society - the way it should be. Lest we just become solipsistic, > > selfish, impersonal and uncaring. > > With all of which, I too agree. The problem (IMHO) is that > not everyone shares these views, and whilst it might be nice > to think we could gain accessibility-for-all through the > goodwill of those who /do/ share these views, it is more > realistic (IMHO) to accept that we will achieve accessibility-for-all > /faster/ if even the non-altruistic can perceive some benefit. > > ** Phil. > > _______________________________________________ > List_HTML4all.org mailing list > http://www.html4all.org/wiki > -- 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 From faulkner.steve at gmail.com Mon Oct 29 06:47:04 2007 From: faulkner.steve at gmail.com (Steven Faulkner) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 13:47:04 +0000 Subject: [html4all] Accessible to whom (or to which groups) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55687cf80710290647h702c16gd784d5988234b616@mail.gmail.com> Hi Peter, While it is an uphill battle, it does not make it any easier by pretending that accessibility is something it is not in order to get support for it, because the very issues that make it difficult are those that make it worthwhile. On 29/10/2007, XStandard Vlad Alexander wrote: > Philip wrote: > > it will remain an uphill battle to gain support > > for the precepts of acessibility all the while there are > > suggesstions ... that accessibility is "for the benefit > > of those with disabilities" rather than "for the > > benefit of all". > I agree with this assessment. > > Regards, > -Vlad > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > From: Philip Taylor (Webmaster) > Date: 2007-10-29 9:10 AM > > > > Joshue O Connor wrote: > >> Hi Phil, > >> > >>> And that is > >>> why I dislike the divisive language of WCAG 1.0 and > >>> WCAG 2.0 > >> I never thought of it as divisive. > > > > Let me start by apologising to those whom my previous messages > > upset, and in particular Laura, whom I know is worried about > > the possibility of a schism within the group. As I hope has > > become clear now that the dust has settled, it was never my > > intention to offend (and certainly not to accuse anyone of > > racism : it is still unclear to me how anyone could have > > though otherwise), but rather to point out that -- in my > > opinion -- it will remain an uphill battle to gain support > > for the precepts of acessibility all the while there are > > suggesstions (in some cases, very overt suggestions) that > > accessibility is "for the benefit of those with disabilities" > > rather than "for the benefit of all". > > > > [...] > > > >>> I would like all of us who believe > >>> in equality and equitability of treatment to state > >>> that we believe that the web should be accessible > >>> to /all/, not just to one particular group. > >> And me. But in order to do that minority groups, like people with > >> disabilities, have needs that must be addressed. This takes up time, > >> resources, energy etc and some may say that it is possibly > >> disproportionate, or skewed, if a minority group require extra > >> attention and extra resources. However, this is necessary and in a sane > >> society - the way it should be. Lest we just become solipsistic, > >> selfish, impersonal and uncaring. > > > > With all of which, I too agree. The problem (IMHO) is that > > not everyone shares these views, and whilst it might be nice > > to think we could gain accessibility-for-all through the > > goodwill of those who /do/ share these views, it is more > > realistic (IMHO) to accept that we will achieve accessibility-for-all > > /faster/ if even the non-altruistic can perceive some benefit. > > > > ** Phil. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > List_HTML4all.org mailing list > > http://www.html4all.org/wiki > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > List_HTML4all.org mailing list > http://www.html4all.org/wiki > -- 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 From chaals at opera.com Mon Oct 29 07:02:17 2007 From: chaals at opera.com (Charles McCathieNevile) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 10:02:17 -0400 Subject: [html4all] Accessible to whom (or to which groups) In-Reply-To: <4725DBD2.2080400@Rhul.Ac.Uk> References: <4725B25B.7090402@cfit.ie> <4725DBD2.2080400@Rhul.Ac.Uk> Message-ID: On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 09:10:42 -0400, Philip Taylor (Webmaster) wrote: > ... whilst it might be nice > to think we could gain accessibility-for-all through the > goodwill of those who /do/ share these views, it is more > realistic (IMHO) to accept that we will achieve accessibility-for-all > /faster/ if even the non-altruistic can perceive some benefit. Probably. But that means that we should figure out how to sell the package easier when we figure out what we need - i.e. work out a solution, work out if you can generalise it so it doesn't break something else, then work out if in fact you can show benefits for others. The basic goal of access for people with disabilities is to give access to people with disabilities. If it costs more or is harder, so be it. If there is a simpler way, of course, that's great, but simplicity is a seperate goal of overall design (and entails not having things that help one group but cost another one, if you can possibly avoid it). cheers Chaals -- Charles McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group je parle fran?ais -- hablo espa?ol -- jeg l?rer norsk http://my.opera.com/chaals Try the Kestrel - Opera 9.5 alpha From usenet200309 at pigsonthewing.org.uk Wed Oct 31 14:04:12 2007 From: usenet200309 at pigsonthewing.org.uk (Andy Mabbett) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 21:04:12 +0000 Subject: [html4all] phonetic of some word or name In-Reply-To: <4722F876.7010308@free.fr> References: <4722F876.7010308@free.fr> Message-ID: In message <4722F876.7010308 at free.fr>, aurelien.levyatfree.fr@?.?.invalid writes >did you think as me that it can be useful to have a new html element to >markup phonetic pronunciation of a word or name. [Hello folks: my first post here] I thank that might (at least in the interim) be a good case for a microformat. Something like, say: Edinburgh (pronounced "ed-in-buro" and Edinburgh (pronounced "[UTF-8 phonetic characters]" (the second from ) [UTF-8 Japanese characters for "Tokyo metropolis"] To-kyo-to (the latter from ) When I get chance I'll suggest it on one of the microformats mailing lists -- Andy Mabbett * Say "NO!" to compulsory ID Cards: * Free Our Data: * Are you using Microformats, yet: ? From chaals at opera.com Wed Oct 31 14:33:58 2007 From: chaals at opera.com (Charles McCathieNevile) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 17:33:58 -0400 Subject: [html4all] phonetic of some word or name In-Reply-To: References: <4722F876.7010308@free.fr> Message-ID: On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 17:04:12 -0400, Andy Mabbett wrote: > In message <4722F876.7010308 at free.fr>, > aurelien.levyatfree.fr@?.?.invalid writes > >> did you think as me that it can be useful to have a new html element to >> markup phonetic pronunciation of a word or name. > > [Hello folks: my first post here] > > I thank that might (at least in the interim) be a good case for a > microformat. I think that is a bad idea. There is already markup in HTML that does this, it is already implemented natively in the biggest browser, so I don't see why we should do something different. Multiplying the kinds of markup that tools and users need to be able to get right always increases complexity and likelihood of problems (which is already stupidly high in a lot of our industry). This case does not appear to offer any justification for that increase. cheers Chaals -- Charles McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group je parle fran?ais -- hablo espa?ol -- jeg l?rer norsk http://my.opera.com/chaals Try the Kestrel - Opera 9.5 alpha From usenet200309 at pigsonthewing.org.uk Wed Oct 31 14:48:10 2007 From: usenet200309 at pigsonthewing.org.uk (Andy Mabbett) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 21:48:10 +0000 Subject: [html4all] phonetic of some word or name In-Reply-To: References: <4722F876.7010308@free.fr> Message-ID: In message , Charles McCathieNevile writes >On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 17:04:12 -0400, Andy Mabbett > wrote: > In message ><4722F876.7010308 at free.fr>, > aurelien.levyatfree.fr@?.?.invalid >writes > >> did you think as me that it can be useful to have a new >html element to >> markup phonetic pronunciation of a word or name. > > >[Hello folks: my first post here] > > I thank that might (at least in >the interim) be a good case for a > microformat. I think that is a bad >idea. There is already markup in HTML that does this Which is..? -- Andy Mabbett