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

Re: STILL Open--48-Hour Consensus Call: Request to reconsider Alt Techniques Location

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 09:19:18 -0500
Message-ID: <4F44F966.9010001@intertwingly.net>
To: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
CC: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
On 02/22/2012 08:07 AM, Laura Carlson wrote:
> Hi Janina,
>
> Sam quoted Steve's Change Proposal:
>
>> "The WCAG WG is more suited to development and vetting of the
>> requirements and guidance of alternative text at this level, while
>> the product of that development and vetting process can be equally
>> available to developers using any specification."
>
> Then Sam wrote:
>
>>> This fourth point starts out by restating portions of the third
>>> point.  It then concludes by making a point that is uncontested:
>>> nobody is proposing that the WCAG WG stop producing WCAG documents.
>
> So maybe consider restating that to:
>
> "The HTML WG is unsuited to development and vetting of the
> requirements and guidance of alternative text at this level," and then
> state why.
>
> Sam, what type of rationale would be considered new information on this point?
>
> This might be the elephant in the room that everyone is dancing around.

Without debating the merit of that point, I will state that that's an 
entirely different point.  Unless you also make the case that having
information relevant to authors that make use of elements such as <img>
and attributes such as alt="" in the same place as the definition of
those elements is counter productive, the result would lead to an 
entirely different conclusion than the proposal made by movealt proposal.

> Best Regards,
> Laura

- Sam Ruby
Received on Wednesday, 22 February 2012 14:19:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:42:53 GMT