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

Re: Discussion: Text Alternative Survey

From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 09:57:54 -0700
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Matt Morgan-May <mattmay@adobe.com>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-Id: <9126FD86-3949-447E-9FFB-E4DFE7924316@apple.com>
To: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>

On Apr 22, 2010, at 23:18 , Laura Carlson wrote:

> Hi all,
> Thanks to everyone who completed the "Call for Consensus: Text
> Alternatives" survey [1].
> I am  especially grateful to Dave and Ian for your comments. They are
> points that need discussion and consideration. Thank you.
> Dave commented on the survey:
>> 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>.

Funny, the page seems updated since I saw it last.  It now says:

A conformance checker must report the lack of a text alternative as an error. The image element <img> is only valid when at least one of the following is true. The
	 alt attribute is present (empty or non-empty), or
	 aria-labelledby attribute present (non-empty only), or
	 aria-label attribute is present (non-empty only), or
	 <img> element is located within a <figure> element that has a non-empty <figcaption> element, or
	 role attribute is present and has a value of "presentation".

This still does not mention the "alt-is-missing-and-I-know-it attribute in response to my question below.  I am still concerned that, therefore, we voted on an incomplete proposal.  Did we?

>> B) Serious issue: Whether or not we say that authoring tools must
>> generate conforming documents, anyone writing a tool would normally
>> wish to and expect to, and may well be instructed to by their
>> management. Being silent on the subject, as the replacement text is,
>> will simply encourage the behavior of putting in 'nonce' values (e.g.
>> alt="" or alt="<file-name>").
> WAI CG said that they would not object to allowing a "generated" or
> "missing" attribute to address this point. [2]  The document says, "In
> order to address both the validity and human generation concerns, we
> do not oppose the creation of 'autogenerated' and 'missing' attributes
> where either one of these could be used to make an image that does not
> have any human-generated text alternatives valid. (Note: It is
> important that this marker is not included in the alternative text
> string itself.)"

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Monday, 26 April 2010 16:58:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:10 UTC