W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > April 2010

Re: Discussion: Text Alternative Survey

From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 20:29:47 -0500
Message-ID: <r2r1c8dbcaa1004231829kce6d77fbm5c5f89c5df3438c5@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Matt Morgan-May <mattmay@adobe.com>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Hi Dave,

>>> A) The replacement text falls far short of the editorial quality of the text it replaces.
>>
>> Any suggestions for improvement? I'd really appreciate help from you
>> or anyone else. I'm no spec writer as you probably can tell <smile>.
>
> As long as we're clear that this is not verbatim text, but intent, the > editor is really good at this!

According to the HTML Working Group Decision policy. The details
section of a proposal can be:

1.  A set of edit instructions, specific enough that they can be
applied without ambiguity.
2.  Spec text for a draft to be published separate from HTML5 (though
such a draft can be proposed at any time without a Change Proposal).
3.  Exact spec text for the sections to be changed, and a baseline
revision for the version of the spec being changed.
4.  With prior permission from the chairs, a high-level prose
description of the changes to be made.

Maciej, would the suggested text in the proposal qualify as a set of
edit instructions that are specific enough that they can be applied
without ambiguity?
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20090126#With_Suggested_Text

If so, how would it be best to indicate this in the proposal?

> They *like* 'lies' and/or useless values?  I clearly need to learn
> something here.  And this paragraph seems to be self-contradictory:
> we don't object to 'generated' text as long as it doesn't appear in
> the place where the text has to appear?  Or is this saying they'd like
> *another* attribute 'missing-alt="true and the authoring tool knows it
> and yes I have asked him twice this morning to deal with it!"'?

As Matt pointed out "missing" would be an attribute that honestly
labels missing alt text for what it is: missing. It would disambiguate
and declare it for what it is: incomplete, lacking substance. It
would:

* provide a machine checkable mechanism to locate missing alt/enable
tools to quickly discern where it has been used.
* allow for future improvement (perhaps via crowdsourcing).

Offering a method for Flickr type image galleries to be valid with
"missing" seems far more than reasonable. I was personally against
this solution as "missing" is not perceivable by some people. But I
could live with it as, at least it is an honest label and it affords a
practical method of detection and handling.

And the crowdsourcing possibility may actually help make things
better. The idea would help with one of the biggest problems we deal
with around images: that we can see something is wrong with someone
else's content, but can't do anything about it.  Matt could you talk
more about this?

Henri Sivonen made a public comment a while back to WCAG explicitly
asking for WAI recommendation on what an authoring tool should
generate after it makes every effort to obtain a text alternative for
an image and the author does not provide one. WAI has said they do not
oppose a "missing" attribute.

Best Regards,
Laura
--
Laura L. Carlson
Received on Saturday, 24 April 2010 01:30:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:42:07 GMT