[Bug 22855] Would it make sense to say that not having alt violates WCAG?

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22855

--- Comment #1 from dmacdona <david100@sympatico.ca> ---
The warning is:

Note: Since some users cannot use images at all (e.g. because they are blind)
the alt attribute is only allowed to be omitted when no text alternative is
available and none can be made available, as in the above examples.

"is only allowed"

by who, HTML5? if so we should put that limitation.... because WCAG does not
allow this, neither do any applicable laws which have adopted the WCAG, so
authors may think they are off the hook, and may be subject to a breach of law
for not having ALT text.


Perhaps add: 
Note: Since some users cannot use images at all (e.g. because they are blind)
the alt attribute is only allowed <add>in this specification</add>to be omitted
when no text alternative is available and none can be made available, as in the
above examples.  <add>However, it my not be allowed under accessibility
laws.</add>

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.

Received on Thursday, 1 August 2013 17:08:09 UTC