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

RE: CFC re ISSUE-31 Missing Alt

From: Sean Hayes <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 08:56:16 +0000
To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
CC: "Gregory J. Rosmaita" <oedipus@hicom.net>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-ID: <8DEFC0D8B72E054E97DC307774FE4B911A5138D7@DB3EX14MBXC315.europe.corp.microsoft.com>
Yes I've been thinking it would be better to call it @altNotAsserted.  Missing is a little ambiguous as to what is actually missing.

-----Original Message-----
From: public-html-a11y-request@w3.org [mailto:public-html-a11y-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of David Singer
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 3:00 AM
To: Laura Carlson
Cc: Gregory J. Rosmaita; HTML Accessibility Task Force
Subject: Re: CFC re ISSUE-31 Missing Alt

'a missing tag' is ambiguous (and 'a missing tag must be generated' could be seen as a contradiction...)

a tag stating that 'alt' is known to be missing, perhaps?

'which can then be...' appears to be connected to the authoring tool, rather than this new tag

overall:
if an authoring tool prompts an author for alt text and the author explicitly refuses to supply it, then a tag stating that 'alt' is missing MUST be auto-generated by the authoring tool; the presence of this tag can then be used to trigger a retrieval process such as that outlined in the emails on RDFPic [1] and the RDF and Photos W3C Note [2]

I'm not at all sure I agree with this approach, but we may as well be clear about what we are debating!

On Apr 28, 2010, at 16:51 , Laura Carlson wrote:

> Hi Gregory,
> 
>> my 2 cents (american) on an auto-generated authoring-tool inserted 
>> missing alt tag:
>> 
>> if an authoring tool prompts an author for alt text and the author 
>> explicitly refuses, then a missing tag MUST be auto-generated by the 
>> authoring tool, which can then be used to trigger a retrieval process 
>> such as that i outlined in my post on RDFPic [1] and the RDF and 
>> Photos W3C Note [2]
> 
> Thank you very much for this. I added a section on the Change Proposal 
> for metadata using your text as a start.
> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/User:Lcarlson/ImgElement#Metadata
> 
> Thoughts everyone? Ideas for improvement? Can anyone not live with this?
> 
> Best Regards,
> Laura
> 
> --
> Laura L. Carlson
> 

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Thursday, 29 April 2010 08:57:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:42:08 GMT