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

Re: Video Poster image (was RE: DRAFT analysis of fallback mechanisms for embedded content ACTION-66)

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 20:34:28 +0000 (UTC)
To: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
cc: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Martin Kliehm <martin.kliehm@namics.com>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1012052032260.11018@ps20323.dreamhostps.com>
On Fri, 3 Dec 2010, John Foliot wrote:
>
> Sure, but how do you enforce that intent? HTML 4 mandated all images 
> have alt text, and 10 years later HTML5 wants to make @alt optional 
> because nobody followed the intent.

That is neither what it does, nor why it does it.

It makes alt="" required just like HTML4, except in specific cases that 
were not handled by HTML4, in which case it requires other information in 
place of alt. The alt="" attribute is one of the few "bolt-on" 
accessibility features in HTML4 that a measurable number of authors 
actually _did_ use correctly.


> What it should be, and what authors are going to do are two very 
> seperate things, and we can't change that, so instead we must account 
> for it.

Indeed.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Sunday, 5 December 2010 20:34:57 GMT

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