t:graphicImage doesnot generate XHTML complaint code

[Hazem Saleh-2]

Hi Team,

Simon and me made a discussion about making the (t:graphicImage) component XHTML complaint.

Here is the thread discussion :
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOMAHAWK-1143

We need to take your opinion about that,
Have we have to make the components XHTML complaint or leave this to the user's usage with warnings ?

Thanks all!

--
Hazem Ahmed Saleh Ahmed
http://www.jroller.com/page/HazemBlog

[Hazem Saleh-2]

Sorry the thread discussion is here :
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOMAHAWK-1291 

On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 12:15 AM, Hazem Saleh <hazems@...> wrote:

Hi Team,

Simon and me made a discussion about making the (t:graphicImage) component XHTML complaint.

Here is the thread discussion :
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOMAHAWK-1143

We need to take your opinion about that,
Have we have to make the components XHTML complaint or leave this to the user's usage with warnings ?

Thanks all!

--
Hazem Ahmed Saleh Ahmed
http://www.jroller.com/page/HazemBlog

--
Hazem Ahmed Saleh Ahmed
http://www.jroller.com/page/HazemBlog

On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 12:15 AM, Hazem Saleh <hazems@...
<mailto:hazems@...>> wrote:

>
>     Hi Team,
>
>     Simon and me made a discussion about making the (t:graphicImage)
>     component XHTML complaint.
>
>     Here is the thread discussion :
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOMAHAWK-1143
>
>     We need to take your opinion about that,
>     Have we have to make the components XHTML complaint or leave this
>     to the user's usage with warnings ?
>

Hazem Saleh schrieb:
> Sorry the thread discussion is here :
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOMAHAWK-1291
Manfred commented on the jira issue:
[I moved this to the email thread, so we don't have half the discussion here and half on the issue]

> +1 for a strict (but sweet-tempered) behaviour

> that means:
> - log a nag warning
> - render a non-empty alt attribute with a "meaningful" default text if the developer
>    omits the attribute (or provides an empty one)

The thing is that for h:graphicImage and t:graphicImage we have **no idea** what a "meaningful" text would be. This is some arbitrary image that the user has chosen. For what purpose? We don't know - unless we embed AI software and do image recognition on the referenced file. So for h:graphicImage and t:graphicImage we have **only** these choices:
(a) don't output ALT. This screws all blind users, but in an obvious way so that QA departments can easily detect it and tell their developers to add the needed alt attributes. And it is not our code that is at fault.
(b) output empty ALT. This screws all blind users, but it cannot be detected by validation. And it is our code that is at fault as well as the user code.
(c) output ALT with "ha ha no description". See (b).

For cases where myfaces components are generating the image references for their own purposes, they *know* what that purpose is. Always. So they are always capable of attaching a valid ALT description.


Regards,
Simon

simon.kitching@... schrieb:

> On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 12:15 AM, Hazem Saleh <hazems@...
> <mailto:hazems@...>> wrote:
>>
>>     Hi Team,
>>
>>     Simon and me made a discussion about making the (t:graphicImage)
>>     component XHTML complaint.
>>
>>     Here is the thread discussion :
>>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOMAHAWK-1143
>>
>>     We need to take your opinion about that,
>>     Have we have to make the components XHTML complaint or leave this
>>     to the user's usage with warnings ?
>>
> Hazem Saleh schrieb:
>> Sorry the thread discussion is here :
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOMAHAWK-1291
> Manfred commented on the jira issue:
> [I moved this to the email thread, so we don't have half the
> discussion here and half on the issue]
>
>> +1 for a strict (but sweet-tempered) behaviour. that means:
>> - log a nag warning
>> - render a non-empty alt attribute with a "meaningful" default text
>> if the developer
>>    omits the attribute (or provides an empty one)
>
> The thing is that for h:graphicImage and t:graphicImage we have **no
> idea** what a "meaningful" text would be. This is some arbitrary image
> that the user has chosen. For what purpose? We don't know - unless we
> embed AI software and do image recognition on the referenced file. So
> for h:graphicImage and t:graphicImage we have **only** these choices:
> (a) don't output ALT. This screws all blind users, but in an obvious
> way so that QA departments can easily detect it and tell their
> developers to add the needed alt attributes. And it is not our code
> that is at fault.
> (b) output empty ALT. This screws all blind users, but it cannot be
> detected by validation. And it is our code that is at fault as well as
> the user code.
> (c) output ALT with "ha ha no description". See (b).
>
> For cases where myfaces components are generating the image references
> for their own purposes, they *know* what that purpose is. Always. So
> they are always capable of attaching a valid ALT description.

Mario has suggested to me that if there is a "title" attribute on the
component, then that could be used as the alt text. That seems
reasonable; an image title should be meaningful. But that doesn't solve
the problem.

Put the filename of the referenced image in the alt? It might sometimes
work - but equally might not. And it isn't translated into the user
language. So no, this isn't really a good solution.

Regards,
Simon

[Mario Ivankovits]

Hi!

Ok, just to say something here too.
If you are going to create an accessibility application you have to put
more work into it than just adding an ALT text to your images.
Since a "meaningful" default text is not easy to find, if not
impossible, my vote is:

>> that means:
>> - log a nag warning
+1 probably configurable. something like
org.apache.myfaces.ACCESSIBILITY_WARNINGS=true|false with default to "true".

>> - render a non-empty alt attribute with a "meaningful" default text
>> if the developer
>>    omits the attribute (or provides an empty one)
-1
> (a) don't output ALT. This screws all blind users, but in an obvious
> way so that QA departments can easily detect it and tell their
> developers to add the needed alt attributes. And it is not our code
> that is at fault.
+1
> (b) output empty ALT. This screws all blind users, but it cannot be
> detected by validation. And it is our code that is at fault as well as
> the user code.
-1
> (c) output ALT with "ha ha no description". See (b).
-1

Probably we can use the "title" text as default for the "alt" if there
is one. For sure, the Tomahawk components (e.g. tree2) need to be fixed
to properly render an ALT attrbute.

Ciao,
Mario

[Mike Kienenberger]

I agree with Simon in that where the image usage is not under our
control (like t:graphicImage), we should not output an alt tag unless
the end-user specifies an alt tag.


On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 4:50 AM, simon.kitching@...
<simon.kitching@...> wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 12:15 AM, Hazem Saleh <hazems@...
> <mailto:hazems@...>> wrote:
>>
>>    Hi Team,
>>
>>    Simon and me made a discussion about making the (t:graphicImage)
>>    component XHTML complaint.
>>
>>    Here is the thread discussion :
>>    https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOMAHAWK-1143
>>
>>    We need to take your opinion about that,
>>    Have we have to make the components XHTML complaint or leave this
>>    to the user's usage with warnings ?
>>
> Hazem Saleh schrieb:
>>
>> Sorry the thread discussion is here :
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOMAHAWK-1291
>
> Manfred commented on the jira issue:
> [I moved this to the email thread, so we don't have half the discussion here
> and half on the issue]
>
>> +1 for a strict (but sweet-tempered) behaviour
>
>> that means:
>> - log a nag warning
>> - render a non-empty alt attribute with a "meaningful" default text if the
>> developer
>>   omits the attribute (or provides an empty one)
>
> The thing is that for h:graphicImage and t:graphicImage we have **no idea**
> what a "meaningful" text would be. This is some arbitrary image that the
> user has chosen. For what purpose? We don't know - unless we embed AI
> software and do image recognition on the referenced file. So for
> h:graphicImage and t:graphicImage we have **only** these choices:
> (a) don't output ALT. This screws all blind users, but in an obvious way so
> that QA departments can easily detect it and tell their developers to add
> the needed alt attributes. And it is not our code that is at fault.
> (b) output empty ALT. This screws all blind users, but it cannot be detected
> by validation. And it is our code that is at fault as well as the user code.
> (c) output ALT with "ha ha no description". See (b).
>
> For cases where myfaces components are generating the image references for
> their own purposes, they *know* what that purpose is. Always. So they are
> always capable of attaching a valid ALT description.
>
>
> Regards,
> Simon
>
>

[Hazem Saleh-2]

I will modify it for letting it only output a warning in case of missed alt.

Thank you guys for you ideas.

On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 8:42 PM, Mike Kienenberger <mkienenb@...> wrote:

I agree with Simon in that where the image usage is not under our
control (like t:graphicImage), we should not output an alt tag unless
the end-user specifies an alt tag.

On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 4:50 AM, simon.kitching@...
<simon.kitching@...> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 12:15 AM, Hazem Saleh <hazems@...
> <mailto:hazems@...>> wrote:
>>
>>    Hi Team,
>>
>>    Simon and me made a discussion about making the (t:graphicImage)
>>    component XHTML complaint.
>>
>>    Here is the thread discussion :
>>    https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOMAHAWK-1143
>>
>>    We need to take your opinion about that,
>>    Have we have to make the components XHTML complaint or leave this
>>    to the user's usage with warnings ?
>>
> Hazem Saleh schrieb:
>>
>> Sorry the thread discussion is here :
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOMAHAWK-1291
>
> Manfred commented on the jira issue:
> [I moved this to the email thread, so we don't have half the discussion here
> and half on the issue]
>
>> +1 for a strict (but sweet-tempered) behaviour
>
>> that means:
>> - log a nag warning
>> - render a non-empty alt attribute with a "meaningful" default text if the
>> developer
>>   omits the attribute (or provides an empty one)
>
> The thing is that for h:graphicImage and t:graphicImage we have **no idea**
> what a "meaningful" text would be. This is some arbitrary image that the
> user has chosen. For what purpose? We don't know - unless we embed AI
> software and do image recognition on the referenced file. So for
> h:graphicImage and t:graphicImage we have **only** these choices:
> (a) don't output ALT. This screws all blind users, but in an obvious way so
> that QA departments can easily detect it and tell their developers to add
> the needed alt attributes. And it is not our code that is at fault.
> (b) output empty ALT. This screws all blind users, but it cannot be detected
> by validation. And it is our code that is at fault as well as the user code.
> (c) output ALT with "ha ha no description". See (b).
>
> For cases where myfaces components are generating the image references for
> their own purposes, they *know* what that purpose is. Always. So they are
> always capable of attaching a valid ALT description.
>
>
> Regards,
> Simon
>
>

--
Hazem Ahmed Saleh Ahmed
http://www.jroller.com/page/HazemBlog