WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Question about image in the alt attribute

for

From: Jonathan Metz
Date: Aug 1, 2014 11:06AM

>On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 9:36 PM, Chagnon | PubCom < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
>wrote:
>
>>Olaf wrote:
>>"This is one of the areas where WCAG needs fixing - accessibility is not
>>about disabilities of user agents. "
>>
>>Correct. It's about people and people will use whatever technology they
>>can
>>to meet their needs.


In my opinion, there is no correlation between a specification addressing
the purpose of an attribute and a supporting document's extrapolation of
accessibility benefits for providing that attribute that would infer a
preference for user agents.

For one thing, Jukka only linked to it's relationship with the <src> tag,
and seems to be hung up on the phrase "...when not available". The
requirements for the attribute is actually explained under 4.7.1.1, which
references WCAG: alt attributes "are a primary way of making visual
information accessible, because they can be rendered through any sensory
modality (for example, visual, auditory or tactile) to match the needs of
the user."


>>One of the biggest problems with WCAG is how it's written and organized
>>on
>>the website. It needs a good team of professional technical writers and
>>editors to rewrite the gobbily-gook that's there now, and a team of
>>professional designers create a comprehendible website.


Because people interpret things differently about EVERYTHING, it makes it
really hard to keep people focused on any underlying concept. As there is
no governing legislative body that dictates: "This is what it means, pure
and simple; period, end of story." Because of this, it's left to anybody's
interpretation, and therefore WCAG is written in a very 'Charles
Dickens'-way — it tends to over-explain concepts that are already
over-explained out of necessity.

Take the title "Web Content Accessibility Guidelines". People have said
this means everything you put on the web ('Web Content'), or nothing to do
with how technology works on the web (only 'content' found on websites),
just web sites, etc. In other words, over-explaining provides a way to
cover their bases.

I can see an argument for it being written in plain-language, but I don't
think that's the right approach. Figurative language is used in plain
language, which adds significant barriers for cognitive impairments and
can make understanding technical documents very difficult. Technical
documents deserve a style of writing which best correlates with it's
purpose.

WCAG is a technical document written by technical people for a technical
subject. It's not something people typically read in the bathroom or on
lunch breaks. That said, I completely — 1000% — agree about the
organization of the content. I also agree that they would benefit from
more web designers joining to present it a bit better.


>>Example... From WCAG guidelines at
>>http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#text-equiv
>>
>>"Pure decoration." Too ambiguous a term. Undefined. Nearly everything
>>that
>>isn't text could end up classified as "pure decoration."


Explained a little further down the page
<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#puredecdef>; as a definition: "Pure
decoration: serving only an aesthetic purpose, providing no information,
and having no functionality. Note: Text is only purely decorative if the
words can be rearranged or substituted without changing their purpose.
Example: The cover page of a dictionary has random words in very light
text in the background."


>>"Used only for visual formatting." No one could figure out what the WCAG
>>authors meant by this. It's hard to imagine how graphics could be used
>>for
>>visual formatting. It's equally hard to know what is meant by visual
>>formatting because even text is visually formatted. That's how
>>publications
>>& websites are put together! The only ideas the class could come up with
>>are rules (or outlines, borders) and background tints that are often
>>placed
>>around sidebars and other types of "boxed" information to separate them
>>visually from the rest of the page.


Visual formatting is a term used to describe how user agents process the
document tree for visual media. In CSS 2.1, the Visual Formatting Model
describes the relationship each element in the document tree has to the
box model. Positioning elements has greatly improved accessibility because
images that were once used for visual formatting (like spacer gifs) are
being used less and less. However, there are still web sites that use this
technique <http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visuren.html#positioning-scheme>; and
when they do, this is what WCAG is talking about.


>>"Or is not presented to users." This phrase was the most confusing. Which
>>users are they talking about? Sighted, low-vision, or blind users? And
>>how
>>could a graphic (or non-text element) that's on a webpage or in a
>>document
>>not be presented? If it's in the document, how could it not be there?
>>(That
>>comment was by an editor.) What do they mean by this term?


Some things that come to mind include not marking up comments correctly or
using a white box on a white page to create a margin and failing to
include alt="", etc.


>>If we want to educate people about accessibility and mandate that it be
>>done, then we have to give people reasonable tools, directions,
>>standards,
>>guidelines, etc. so that it the tasks and objectives are understandable
>>and
>>doable. What we have now on the W3C website is an incomprehensible,
>>disorganized, confusing mess.


WCAG does include an (occasionally) helpful link to further understand the
concepts misunderstood by your clients:
<http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/text-equiv-all.html>;.

-Jon




On 8/1/14, 11:39 AM, "Whitney Quesenbery" < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:

>I've argued for plain language in regulations and guidelines for years. We
>even asked Ginny Redish to do a webinar on plain language and laws for the
>508 Refresh Committee. (It's probably still archived somewhere, but if
>you're interested, either check out her book Letting Go of the Words -
>www.redish.net, or plainlanguage.gov.)
>
>It's not enough for a group of people in a room to decide what something
>means. To make standards and regulations easy to follow, they must be
>written in clear language.
>
>I urge everyone working on any sort of committee to not only have a
>subject
>matter expert as editor, but also someone skilled in plain language
>(preferably someone who is not a "combatant.")
>
>Whitney
>
>
>On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 9:36 PM, Chagnon | PubCom < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
>wrote:
>
>> Olaf wrote:
>> "This is one of the areas where WCAG needs fixing - accessibility is not
>> about disabilities of user agents. "
>>
>> Correct. It's about people and people will use whatever technology they
>>can
>> to meet their needs.
>>
>> One of the biggest problems with WCAG is how it's written and organized
>>on
>> the website. It needs a good team of professional technical writers and
>> editors to rewrite the gobbily-gook that's there now, and a team of
>> professional designers create a comprehendible website.
>>
>> Example: "Decoration, Formatting, Invisible: If non-text content is pure
>> decoration, is used only for visual formatting, or is not presented to
>> users, then it is implemented in a way that it can be ignored by
>>assistive
>> technology." From WCAG guidelines at
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#text-equiv
>>
>> Just in yesterday's class, my clients (federal designers, web
>>developers,
>> and editors) reviewed this guideline and came away more confused than
>>when
>> they started. Here are some of their comments.
>>
>> "Pure decoration." Too ambiguous a term. Undefined. Nearly everything
>>that
>> isn't text could end up classified as "pure decoration."
>>
>> "Used only for visual formatting." No one could figure out what the WCAG
>> authors meant by this. It's hard to imagine how graphics could be used
>>for
>> visual formatting. It's equally hard to know what is meant by visual
>> formatting because even text is visually formatted. That's how
>>publications
>> & websites are put together! The only ideas the class could come up
>>with
>> are rules (or outlines, borders) and background tints that are often
>>placed
>> around sidebars and other types of "boxed" information to separate them
>> visually from the rest of the page.
>>
>> "Or is not presented to users." This phrase was the most confusing.
>>Which
>> users are they talking about? Sighted, low-vision, or blind users? And
>>how
>> could a graphic (or non-text element) that's on a webpage or in a
>>document
>> not be presented? If it's in the document, how could it not be there?
>>(That
>> comment was by an editor.) What do they mean by this term?
>>
>> If we want to educate people about accessibility and mandate that it be
>> done, then we have to give people reasonable tools, directions,
>>standards,
>> guidelines, etc. so that it the tasks and objectives are understandable
>>and
>> doable. What we have now on the W3C website is an incomprehensible,
>> disorganized, confusing mess.
>>
>> There is one good, readable section on the site: the POUR section
>> http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/glance/. Kudos to the authors for adding
>> this
>> big-picture concept to WCAG. I use it all the time in my classes when
>> teaching accessible documents to federal employees. It gets the message
>> across succinctly. We need more of this.
>>
>> -Bevi Chagnon
>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>>- -
>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>> www.PubCom.com - Trainers, Consultants, Designers, Developers.
>> Print, Web, Acrobat, XML, eBooks, and U.S. Federal Section 508
>> Accessibility.
>> Taka a Sec. 508 Class in 2014 - www.Pubcom.com/classes
>>
>>
>> >> >> >>
>>>