WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: The a11y bugs project

for

From: Steve Faulkner
Date: Oct 27, 2011 4:03AM

Hi Vlad,

you wrote:
"As it should be because alternate text is a replacement for an image, not a
supplement to it. Approach this from another direction - would one expect a
supplement to alternate text during a cut/paste, search and translate
operations? No."

sometimes yes sometimes no.

you wrote:
"Steve, to get this project back on track, I invite you sign the petition. A
united accessibility community can achieve great things and your
participation would be a boost for this project. Please join us."

You are asking me to sign somenting I do not agree with, that was decided
without any public input, so I must decline at this time.

If and when the project includes a transparent and public, consensus based
process I will gladly get involved.

regards
Stevef

On 26 October 2011 20:59, Vlad Alexander < <EMAIL REMOVED> >wrote:

> Hi Steve,
>
> The problem you mention is caused because Firefox renders alternate text as
> text on a graphic rather than as real text. Our bug report #3:
>
> http://a11ybugs.org/bug-3.php
>
> .. addresses this issue as it states: "It would be useful to have alternate
> text displayed as text, rather than text on a graphic. This way, parts of
> alternate text could be selected, copied and alternate text would wrap. It
> would also be beneficial to make alternate text participate in Find
> operation."
>
> > Another issue is that Firefox's implementation provides no
> > indication that text is a replacement for an image
> As it should be because alternate text is a replacement for an image, not a
> supplement to it. Approach this from another direction - would one expect a
> supplement to alternate text during a cut/paste, search and translate
> operations? No.
>
> Steve, to get this project back on track, I invite you sign the petition. A
> united accessibility community can achieve great things and your
> participation would be a boost for this project. Please join us.
>
> Regards,
> -Vlad
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> From: Steve Faulkner
> Date: 10/26/2011 12:38 PM
> > hi Vlad,
> >
> > "As with any campaign, there is a time for discussion, a cut-off time and
> a
> > time for everyone to come together to achieve a greater good. In the case
> of
> > this project, the greater good is to have these bugs fixed to match
> Firefox
> > implementation (which Steve questions) than not to have them fixed at
> all."
> >
> > I suggest discussion should have been public from the start. Spending 10
> > mins surfing with images disabled in Firefox will provide enough evidence
> > for most people to conclude that Firefox's implementation is broken.
> Text
> > is sometimes cut off and other times overlaps other content.
> >
> > Due to this, getting other browsers to match Firefox's implementation
> does
> > not achieve 'the greater good'.
> >
> > Another issue is that Firefox's implementation provides no indication
> that
> > text is a replacement for an image, while this may be appropriate in some
> > circumstances it is not in others.
> >
> > I would further suggest that working openly with the Firefox team to
> improve
> > their implementation would be a necessary precursor to working on cross
> > browser support.
> >
> > regards
> > Steve
> >
> > On 26 October 2011 19:23, Vlad Alexander< <EMAIL REMOVED>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> As with any campaign, there is a time for discussion, a cut-off time and
> a
> >> time for everyone to come together to achieve a greater good. In the
> case of
> >> this project, the greater good is to have these bugs fixed to match
> Firefox
> >> implementation (which Steve questions) than not to have them fixed at
> all.
> >>
> >> Over the 5-month period, I have exchanged about a dozen emails with one
> >> browser vendor in particular. They used every possible tactic to push
> back
> >> fixing these bugs. Throughout this process, the only leverage we had was
> >> that another major browser vendor, Firefox, has a useful implementation.
> >> This made these items into "bugs" rather than "feature requests". This
> is a
> >> critical distinction! If Firefox has wrong implementation, then these
> items
> >> are new features to other vendors. If Firefox has correct
> implementation,
> >> then these items are bugs. Bugs can get fixed in a timely manner. New
> >> accessibility features are put at the end of the queue and right now,
> the
> >> queue is very long. And time is of the essence. Microsoft for example
> has a
> >> multi-year release cycle. If these bugs are not fixed in IE10, it will
> be
> >> years before they are fixed in IE11 or IE12.
> >>
> >> I hope that in light of the above, you can understand why I asked Steve
> to
> >> consider using back channels to get clarification on Firefox
> implementation
> >> of these bugs directly from a former Mozilla developer.
> >>
> >> I ask that we in the accessibility community work together for the
> greater
> >> good. Let's applaud Mozilla for having the best implementation for these
> 3
> >> accessibility bugs, compared to the other browsers. Let's get the other
> >> browser vendors on board!
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> -Vlad
> >>
> >>
> >>