W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > September 2007

Re: Investigating the proposed alt attribute recommendations in HTML 5

From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 01:09:00 +0200
Message-ID: <861bd0e194c6a6014ae4b04003d9ad26@10013.local>
To: public-html@w3.org

2007-09-04 20:22:04 +0200 Sander Tekelenburg <st@isoc.nl>:
> At 13:30 +0200 UTC, on 2007-09-04, Leif Halvard Silli:
 
[ … taking hints … ]

> I like your new quoting technique :)

>> [ Š comments on Jon/the draft's example Š ]

> Yes, I'm glad that the spec now tries to give @alt examples, but there seems
> plenty of room for improvement. But erm, we're all free to provide better
> examples... ;) There's probably a good place for that somewhere in the wiki.

All right.
 
> [... proposed <alt> element ]

> (Btw, the same story applies to @alt and @longdesc of course, which is why
> the current <alt> proposal says they would have to be deprecated. (Because
> there is no way that <alt> can be authored for both HTML5 and pre-HTML5 UAs
> when it comes to <img @alt @longdesc>.))

With @ALT, we can do both a @ALT text and a @LONGDESC for the same IMG. But with <ALT> that would be e.g. somethingn like this, I guess:

<alt for='img' ><a href='longdesc'>My Cat</a></alt>

In general, with <ALT> it would be simple to think of how the alternative content could be displayed in parallel with e.g. an IMG ... I mean, the CSS selector would be super simple: IMG:hover+alt{}. Plus one would get to see the img @TITLE via tool tip for free … ;-)

But, with <ALT>, all images would in fact lack @ALT text - so if we have
	
	<a href="ref"><img src="Inside_A"></a>
	<alt>Outside_A</alt>

… then there would be no text link in text mode. Of course, one could add @FOR, but I think this would be one case where many would err.
	
> [... authoring tools's possible behaviour to encourage 'better' HTML]
> 
>> Let's hope such a thing that you suggest would not be something that could
>> make authors switch authoring tool Š
> 
> Well, I do hope they *will* swtich to authoring tools that generate more
> accessible sites ;) (Or not switch, but have their favourite authoring tool
> upgraded to do better.)

agree …
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Tuesday, 4 September 2007 23:09:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:07 GMT