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

Re: Examples for recommending alt omission needed for testing

From: Steve Faulkner <sfaulkner@paciellogroup.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 01:07:53 +0100
Message-ID: <55687cf80709051707w3bdb34c0t4ba58e699c5fd94e@mail.gmail.com>
To: HTMLWG <public-html@w3.org>
Cc: "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>
> Can anyone provide examples of where the recommendation to omit the alt
> attribute would apply?
>
> Please provide public URLs so that UA testing and user testing can be
> conducted..

A criticism of the research i provided to the working group last week was
that the first example i used was not appropriate, so i have asked for more
examples to be provided.

Lachlan has kindly provided a few specific examples of where the
recommendation suggested by the editor would apply, but really 3 examples
provided are an inadequate basis for changing the alt from required to
optional.

I would like to be able to more assistive tech testing and embark on  user
testing, but require more real world data (specific examples, not just
pointers to a site), provided by the proponents of the change in the spec is
preferred,  as supporters of the change have the best understanding of the
circumstances in which they consider it should be applied.

I look forward to having  a resonable amount of sample data to work with.

On 31/08/07, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au> wrote:
>
> Steve Faulkner wrote:
> > Can anyone provide examples of where the recommendation to omit the alt
> > attribute would apply?
> >
> > Please provide public URLs so that UA testing and user testing can be
> > conducted..
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rorschach_inkblot_test
>
> That's the source of one of the examples in the spec, where it's claimed
> that "Sometimes there simply is no text that can do justice to an image".
>
> http://icanhascheezburger.com/
>
> Sometimes they use alt="filename.jpg" and other times they use the
> image's caption.  Using the caption is at least reasonable, but there
> seems to be no benefit for the ones that repeat the file name.  I don't
> know why they don't use the caption for all of them.
>
> e.g. This one uses the file name: alt="128296214217657500imonurrefrig.jpg"
>
> http://icanhascheezburger.com/2007/08/30/im-on-ur-refrigemater-monitorin-ur-calorie-intakez/
>
> This one uses the caption: alt="Strong is The Force With Yoda Cat"
>
> http://icanhascheezburger.com/2007/08/30/strong-is-the-force-with-yoda-cat/
>
> Compare that with this lolcat site that does omit the alt attribute.
>
> http://lolcat.com/
>
> --
> Lachlan Hunt
> http://lachy.id.au/
>



-- 
with regards

Steve Faulkner
Technical Director - TPG Europe
Director - Web Accessibility Tools Consortium

www.paciellogroup.com | www.wat-c.org
Web Accessibility Toolbar -
http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html
Received on Thursday, 6 September 2007 00:07:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:49 UTC