W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2008

Re: [html4all] several messages about alt

From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 13:00:56 +0200
Message-ID: <48033968.4010902@malform.no>
To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
CC: HTML4All <list@html4all.org>, Ben Boyle <benjamins.boyle@gmail.com>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>

Henri Sivonen 08-04-14 09.51:     
> On Apr 14, 2008, at 04:58, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>> Henri Sivonen 08-04-13 20.57:
>>> Apr 13, 2008, at 18:33, Leif Halvard Silli:
>>>> If we formalise that the first step of validation/conformance 
>>>> checking, namely the checking of whether images have the correct 
>>>> alt text and are used in the right way, if tables have summary, and 
>>>> so on and so forth, as a step that must be done by the 
>>>> author/webmaster, then your product could be allowed to check only 
>>>> the more formal points -
>>>
>>> An automated tool becomes less automated if it starts giving more 
>>> and more messages of the nature "Please check yourself if you are 
>>> violating rule foo here." If you take it to absurdity, the tool 
>>> should ask the user to verify the semantic correctness of the use of 
>>> each element and attribute.
>>
>> Well, I thought about it this way: If the author has "stamped" it 
>> himself - with regard to the not machine-checable things, then the 
>> validator do not need to give all those messages that you mention.
>
> Do you mean you are arguing for validator pragmas that silence certain 
> validator messages?
>
> (Note that semi-automated tools aren't useless, but they are different 
> tools. A semi-automated tools could display each image and its alt 
> side-by-side and ask the user to verify that the alternatives make 
> sense.)
>

I guess you could say I argued for a semiautomated tool. But at least I 
argue for a validation where the author becomes more "involved".

One can have different opinions about it, but here in Norway, when 
companies are making their yearly report, they are also requested to 
report not only how they did economocally, but also what they did for 
certain goals that he society/politicians desires. And so, you must e.g. 
tell what you did for the equality of sexes within your company and so on.

Doing it this way, regardless of whether it becomes automatic/a ritual 
only, has some effect ...
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Monday, 14 April 2008 11:01:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:54 UTC