- From: Liam R. E. Quin <liam@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 01:29:53 -0400
- To: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>, W3C WAI Accessible Platform Architectures <public-apa@w3.org>
On Tue, 2017-09-19 at 15:25 -0400, Janina Sajka wrote: > [...] > The above tutorial content suggests the following as an alt: > > <img src="sales.gif" > title="Sales graph" > alt="From 1998 to 2005, sales increased by the following > percentages > with each year: 624%, 75%, 138%, 40%, 35%, 9%, 21%"> > > I would not want to hear that level of descriptive > detail > every time I sourced a page. Alt is enforced hearing to > a > screen reader user--a concept which seems to have been > missed by the author of this tutorial. Yes, completely. In addition, sighted users relying on alt text for missing images will likely not see all of that text, as it's (by default, depending on CSS) clipped to the image size and not wrapped. > > This is a description, imo, not an alt. > > Am I wrong? Well, i agree with you. Steve did a lot of work on them but at that time there was no longdesc allowed to be mentioned and no figure/details stuff. I had to stop working on the replacement, partly because of the politics at the time but mostly because the recommended solutions were in flux. If they've settled down, i'd suggest: 1. the HTML spec should have no more than roughly three paragraphs about alt. Very few people will read more, and those people will probably be willing to read a separate document. 2. The HTML spec should point to a non-normative document under WAI's control that gives examples in more detail. Liam -- Liam Quin, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/ Staff contact for Verifiable Claims WG, SVG WG, XQuery WG Web slave for http://www.fromoldbooks.org/
Received on Wednesday, 20 September 2017 05:30:11 UTC