- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2012 06:11:16 +0200
- To: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis, Sat, 4 Aug 2012 04:23:51 +0100: > On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 4:10 AM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote: >> I hereby offer an alternative change proposal that does NOT add any new >> attribute: >> >> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/RoleImgTrumpsEmptyAlt >> >> Please do not hesitate to provide feedback! > > I don't think we need "a signal that the image is significant but in > lack of alternative text" as: > > 1. Developers can already distinguish images that are not significant > by adding @alt and images that are significant by omitting @alt. Yeah, and that is a quite complicated thing: Add something if it is _not_ significant, and remove something if it _is_ significant. It is more natural to think "Add something to show that it is significant." Especially so, when the starting point is <img> elements that have an empty @alt in order to validate. The problem we try to solve is this: Help generators signal that something is "significant" without being stamped as invalid. The problem with an <img> that lacks the @alt attribute is that this may or may not be an error. (It is only in very specific cases that it isn't.) Thus, omitting is not a general solution. If it were, then we would not need @incomplete/@relaxed either. (My impression was that you supported @relaxed, but perhaps I misunderstood.) All the proposals, including mine, try to solve a common problem in a general way. > 2. AT interested in exposing images that might be significant to end > users already need to expose images with missing @alt. Since this proposal suggests that generator developers should continue to use empty alt, then it necessary to add role=img if we want to make them interested in exposing it. -- leif halvard silli
Received on Saturday, 4 August 2012 04:11:47 UTC