E-mail List Archives
Thread: Re: Alt Tags length and Content
Number of posts in this thread: 5 (In chronological order)
From: JAMESICUS@aol.com
Date: Tue, Aug 05 2003 11:41PM
Subject: Re: Alt Tags length and Content
No previous message | Next message →
In a previous post I wrote:
<<<<<
The W3C provides an example of alt text for icons on their WCAG page .....
>>>>>
..... and that was a laudable example. Another nice example of alt text usage
can be found on the W3C Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) page .....
http://www.w3.org/wai/
..... wherein the Web Accessibility Initiative logo image is accompanied by
the alt text: "Web Accessibility Initiative logo"
However, the W3C is not itself always so circumspect. For instance, on their
Amaya page .....
http://www.w3.org/Amaya/
..... The Amaya tree header image is accompanied by the alt text: "Amaya" and
the 'books on bookshelf ' header image is accompanied by the alt text:
"using" (the same image bears the alt text "Documentation" further down the page)
-- neither of these alt texts are very helpful
From: JAMESICUS@aol.com
Date: Wed, Aug 06 2003 12:53PM
Subject: Re: Alt Tags length and Content
← Previous message | Next message →
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = wrote:
<<<<<
Well, the WAI pages have different accessibility problems, and this is one
of them. In fact, that page http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/ does not actually
comply with the guidelines even at single A level. It does not indicate
all changes in language (such as names of people in languages other than
English). Whether Checkpoint 4.1 is a sensible requirement at present, as
Priority 1 requirement, is a separate issue; the point is claiming
conformance to a WCAG 1.0 is simply wrong if that checkpoint is not
satisfied. (By the way, who can honestly say to have checked that his
document complies with Checkpoint 14.1, "Use the clearest and simplest
language appropriate for a site's content.", which is Priority 1 too.)
>>>>>
Well, I was really addressing the subject of the posting rather than the accessibility deficiencies of the page. However, I don't understand your interpretation of WCAG 1.0 Checkpoint 4.1. I don't see where it requires identification of all changes in language. Rather, it specifies identification of the predominant natural language of a document's content through markup or HTTP headers. Of course, using the clearest and simplest language appropriate for a site's content (Checkpoint 14.1) is a nebulous requirement at best and a pedantic minefield at worst.
<<<<<
My point is that the W3C WAI icons themselves are worse than
useless. The long ALT text is a symptom of the fact that they realized
that W3C WAI-AA WCAG 1.0 (the most obvious candidate for an ALT text) is
horrendously cryptic when read aloud - but it's no less cryptic to the eye
when presented as an image, even though the parts appear in different font
styles and colors. This, in turn, is a symptom of the problem that the
icon tries to say something rather complicated, which is unnecessary to
say, and almost always false at that.
>>>>>
I don't see it that way. By definition, "cryptic" means to be obscure or mysterious and to conceal. I don't think the W3C's "Level Triple-A conformance icon, W3C-WAI Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0" alt text is obscure or mysterious -- particularly since the icon links to a descriptive page -- and I don't think they intended to conceal anything, albeit their accessibility transgressions (in your eyes, dear sir) are regrettable. I also do not find the aforementioned alt text is so horrendous when read aloud -- I find it quite descriptive. I believe the visual icon (image) is sufficiently well known by the Web Content Accessibility community at large -- or the prompting link will titillate curiosity -- and is a useful propaganda tool for engendering Accessibility awareness.
James Pickering
http://www.jp29.org/
From: Jukka K. Korpela
Date: Wed, Aug 06 2003 12:38PM
Subject: Re: Alt Tags length and Content
← Previous message | Next message →
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = wrote:
> - - I don't understand your
> interpretation of WCAG 1.0 Checkpoint 4.1.
I don't think I interpreted it, just mentioned. The exact text is:
"Clearly identify changes in the natural language of a document's text and
any text equivalents (e.g., captions)."
This is followed bu
> I don't see where it requires identification
> of all changes in language.
It hasn't got the word "any", but it is to be implied - otherwise we could
claim conformance to, say, a checkpoint about tables if one of our tables
complies, on the ground that the checkpoint says "table" and not
"any table". For further confirmation, the associated techniques document
that the checkpoint links to says:
"If you use a number of different languages on a page, make sure that any
changes in language are clearly identified by using the "lang" attribute"
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-HTML-TECHS/#changes-in-lang
> Rather, it specifies identification of the
> predominant natural language of a document's content through markup or HTTP headers.
No, that's Checkpoint 4.3, which is Priority 3 and easy to comply with.
(For some odd reason, the http://www.w3.org/WAI/ page doesn't comply
even with that simple requirement.)
> Of course, using the clearest and simplest language appropriate for a site's
> content (Checkpoint 14.1) is a nebulous requirement at best and a pedantic
> minefield at worst.
Indeed. But I'm pretty sure that for almost any page with nontrivial
content, it is possible to locate a formulation and suggest an
alternative formulation that is clearer and simpler, to virtually
anyone's taste. That would constitute an intersubjective, if not
objective, proof that 14.1 has been violated and claim to WAI
conformance is hence false. This demonstrates why it is foolish to impose
_requirements_ like that. But they _are_ in the guidelines, so hardly
anyone can truthfully claim conformance to them.
> I don't see it that way. By definition, "cryptic" means to be obscure or
> mysterious and to conceal.
We can agree on that.
> I don't think the W3C's "Level Triple-A conformance
> icon, W3C-WAI Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0" alt text is obscure or
> mysterious
It's not cryptic to you or me, but it's surely cryptic to more than 99%
of world population. Besides, I primarily referred to the icon itself,
which is pure abbrev stuff. And the alt text, though more readable, is
hardly much more understandable.
> I believe the visual icon (image) is sufficiently well known by the
> Web Content Accessibility community at large
Maybe, but the icon is used, following W3C suggestions, on all kinds of
pages that are directed to people outside this community, which forms a
very small part of Web users.
> -- or the prompting link will titillate curiosity
Which means total waste of time to most users. Unless the user happens to
belong to the relatively small minority that authors Web pages, the
information is useless (in addition to being hard to understand).
>-- and is a useful propaganda tool for engendering
> Accessibility awareness.
No, I don't think that features that _reduce_ the actual accessibility of
a page (by including obscure content that is useless to most users) is
good propaganda for accessibility.
--
Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
From: Kynn Bartlett
Date: Wed, Aug 06 2003 3:46PM
Subject: The Use of Web Accessibility Icons (was: Alt Tags length ...)
← Previous message | Next message →
On Wednesday, August 6, 2003, at 11:34 AM, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
>
>> I don't think the W3C's "Level Triple-A conformance
>> icon, W3C-WAI Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0" alt text is
>> obscure or
>> mysterious
>
> It's not cryptic to you or me, but it's surely cryptic to more than 99%
> of world population. Besides, I primarily referred to the icon itself,
> which is pure abbrev stuff. And the alt text, though more readable, is
> hardly much more understandable.
Agreed. It doesn't make much sense. To even get to the point where you
can understand what it means, you need to know an awful lot about the
WCAG
document and Web accessibility. Let's put it this way -- I believe that
I _most_ understand what a Triple-A button means, but even I couldn't
tell
you right off the bat what the implications are, in real world terms. I
would have to resort to reference to a document which "real world"
people
have likely never read. And I am no beginner here -- I have been
teaching
Web accessibility classes based on WCAG 1.0 for five years.
If you say "oh, that means fully accessible" then you're wrong, for
example. If you say "oh, that means it met all the checkpoints," then
you
STILL might be wrong, as well as stating something which has no real
world,
plain language equivalent.
At best, I view WCAG 1.0 Triple-AAA buttons as saying, "I care about
accessibility, but I don't really know enough about what Triple-A means
to realize that my site is probably NOT technically at AAA levels."
Yes, I'm serious -- that's what I think if I go look at _your_ (generic)
page and I see that. I think you're a well-meaning person but you are
most likely incorrect in your assertion. (I'd love to be proven wrong.
Send me your Triple-A site URLs to kynn@maccessibility, but BE WARNED,
I *will* make a Web post out of them, and if you don't measure up, it
*will* be pointed out!)
>> I believe the visual icon (image) is sufficiently well known by the
>> Web Content Accessibility community at large
>
> Maybe, but the icon is used, following W3C suggestions, on all kinds of
> pages that are directed to people outside this community, which forms a
> very small part of Web users.
Agreed. Such buttons are generally not worth it. In fact, they
distract
from the main purpose of the page in 99.44% of the circumstances, which
means they are actually a DETRIMENT to accessibility. (Distraction is
an accessibility problem. Images are more distracting than text, and
animated images are more distracting than static images.)
>> -- or the prompting link will titillate curiosity
>
> Which means total waste of time to most users. Unless the user happens
> to
> belong to the relatively small minority that authors Web pages, the
> information is useless (in addition to being hard to understand).
Agreed again. There's no point in having these. Most of the users are
NOT going to be able to understand what they mean; at best they will
get a
vague notion that "this is accessible to everyone!" when it may really
not
be.
>> -- and is a useful propaganda tool for engendering
>> Accessibility awareness.
>
> No, I don't think that features that _reduce_ the actual accessibility
> of
> a page (by including obscure content that is useless to most users) is
> good propaganda for accessibility.
Indeed. Consider, for example, the fact that because the graphics are
noticeable (and distracting), it will be more likely to stick in
someone's
head when they visit a site -- there are no corresponding graphics for
_lack_ of accessibility. The use of such logos could easily lead a
typical Web user to conclude that the Web, in general, is far more
accessible than it really is -- "after all, I've seen all the buttons,"
someone might say, "which say the sites are accessible" [sic; a WCAG
button says nothing of the sort] and therefore conclude that there are
no accessibility problems on the Web.
This doesn't even get into the MISUSE of such graphics on pages which
do not actually comply with the stated WCAG compliance level (such as,
I assert, nearly all pages which claim Triple-A compliance).
WCAG compliance icons (and Bobby stickers, Cynthia Says buttons, etc.)
are not a great boon to accessibility. The only reason they're around
at all is because Web developers -- thinking from a developer-centric
point of view and not a user-centric one -- "like them." They're "a
reward," a "badge of honor." Those are poor reasons which lead to
poor UI design.
--Kynn
--
Kynn Bartlett < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > http://kynn.com
Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain http://idyllmtn.com
Author, CSS in 24 Hours http://cssin24hours.com
Inland Anti-Empire Blog http://blog.kynn.com/iae
Shock & Awe Blog http://blog.kynn.com/shock
----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
From: Terence de Giere
Date: Sat, Aug 09 2003 5:15PM
Subject: Re: Alt Tags length and Content
← Previous message | No next message
Maybe putting the W3C WCAG icons on an 'about this site' page might be
OK, and leave them off everywhere else. At least on such a page a clear
explanation of what they mean might not be out of place.
Note that the use of the icons indicate a *claim* of conformance, not a
certification:
Pages bearing this logo indicate a claim of conformance by the
page author or content provider to conformance level Triple-A of
the W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0, including all
Priority 1, Priority 2, and Priority 3 checkpoints defined in
the Guidelines. The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0
explain how to make Web content accessible to people with
disabilities. Conformance to these Guidelines will help make the
Web more accessible to users with disabilities and will benefit
all users.
Claims are not verified by W3C. Content providers are solely
responsible for the use of these logos.
Considering how much we disagree among ourselves at times, and how some
of the tools we use also disagree on conformance, it would be difficult
to come up with a foolproof method that would actually certify that a
web site is accessible, according to the various guidelines available.
Maybe these icons should have a longdesc and a 'd' link. The problem
with the W3C icons alternate text is they are loaded with abbreviations
or acronyms (which is which?) which, if explained, would make the alt
text way to long, and if unexplained, make the alt text somewhat opaque
as to meaning for the average user. Further one cannot use ABBR and
ACRONYM elements in alternate text.
Terence de Giere
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/