W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > August 2012

Re: img@relaxed CP [was: CfC: Close ISSUE-206: meta-generator by Amicable Resolution]

From: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2012 13:01:25 +0100
Message-ID: <CA+ri+VkFodwOao6G2XPCAhx-WR74sNTFFCctHVW1kEKJRPeLCQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>
Cc: "Michael[tm] Smith" <mike@w3.org>, public-html@w3.org, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>
hi ben,

>The absence of @alt is an unambiguous indication that the image should
>have a text alternative. Doesn't necessarily mean it's key to
>understanding the content though.

While you may disagree, that is what the HTML5 and HTML LS currently
define it as.

When an image is the content of a figure element it is not unabiguous
<figure>
<img>
<figcaption>text</figcaption>
</figure>

> User agents (as opposed to linters) have to treat images without @alt
> with or without the linter flag the same,

why? currently firefox for example does not display any visible
indication of an image when it has not alt attribute, why is that
useful for users who have images disabled?

>But it's critical not to expose it in a
> way that would break existing user agent behavior, for example forcing
> text into the accessible name

yes you made that point and I agreed and put the idea aside as noted
in a previous email.


regards
stevef
On 4 August 2012 12:30, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
<bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 11:21 AM, Steve Faulkner
> <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote:
>> We also have another negative siganl which is at the root of the issue
>> the lack of alt
>> In cases where there is lack of alt attribute, in
>> conforming HTML5 documents  this is supposed to signify that the image
>> is a key part of the content which should have a text alternative but
>> one is not available at the time of publication. The allowing of a
>> validator flag is built upon this concept.
>>
>> So either the concept is flawed and should be removed from HTML5 or
>> the concept is sound and the addition of the attribute will provide
>> such indication unabiguously.
>
> The absence of @alt is an unambiguous indication that the image should
> have a text alternative. Doesn't necessarily mean it's key to
> understanding the content though. A lot of syndicated articles have
> photos that are basically filler.
>
> User agents (as opposed to linters) have to treat images without @alt
> with or without the linter flag the same, because significant images
> without @alt are common in the web corpus and will likely continue to
> be so. So I don't see any great value in surfacing such a flag to the
> accessibility hierarchy. As long as its a flag added as a distinct
> field in the API, I guess that's okay, but I think it's a waste of
> spec and development effort. But it's critical not to expose it in a
> way that would break existing user agent behavior, for example forcing
> text into the accessible name so that existing user agent repair
> mechanisms (e.g. reading the filename) and user agent configurations
> for rendering or not rendering such images stop working.
>
> --
> Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis



-- 
with regards

Steve Faulkner
Technical Director - TPG

www.paciellogroup.com | www.HTML5accessibility.com |
www.twitter.com/stevefaulkner
HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives -
dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/
Web Accessibility Toolbar - www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html
Received on Saturday, 4 August 2012 12:02:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 4 August 2012 12:02:36 GMT