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

Re: Request for review of alt and alt value for authoring or publishing tools

From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 23:56:38 +0200
Message-ID: <48052496.5010601@malform.no>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
CC: John Foliot <foliot@wats.ca>, "'Laura Carlson'" <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, wai-xtech@w3.org, wai-liaison@w3.org, public-html@w3.org, "'HTML4All'" <list@html4all.org>

Ian Hickson 08-04-15 20.56:     
> On Tue, 15 Apr 2008, John Foliot wrote:
> > Ian Hickson wrote:
>   

> There's no way to know. My point is that this:
>
>    <figure>
>     <img src="a.jpeg">
>     <legend>I snapped this photo the other day while walking around the
>     Googleplex and saw Ian Hickson working at his desk.</legend>
>    </figure>
>
> ...is significantly less annoying than this:
>
>    <figure>
>     <img src="a.jpeg" alt="I snapped this photo the other day while 
>                            walking around the Googleplex and saw Ian 
>                            Hickson working at his desk.">
>     <legend>I snapped this photo the other day while walking around the
>     Googleplex and saw Ian Hickson working at his desk.</legend>
>    </figure>
>   

And why do you come with that comparison? To bad things, and let's see 
what is best?

Btw, I think it was at AListApart I read that AT users disliked that the 
content of the TITLE element was repeated in the <H1> element.

> ...while providing no less information -- and arguably more, since in the 
> second case the image-disabled user can't easily distinguish it from this 
> third case:
>
>    <figure>
>     <p>I snapped this photo the other day while walking around the
>     Googleplex and saw Ian Hickson working at his desk.</p>
>     <legend>I snapped this photo the other day while walking around the
>     Googleplex and saw Ian Hickson working at his desk.</legend>
>    </figure>
>
> ...which, per spec, is semantically equivalent.
>
>   

A third bad example, again talking about the fact - yest - that it is 
possible to have alt content without having the embedded content in place.

But, why would anyone drop to place a photo inside <figure> or forget 
the SRC inside <IMG>? How often does that happen? Is it a real problem?

Do you think that anyone will actively try to fool AT users? So: No one 
care about alternative content, unless they can use it to fool an AT user?

For that matter, even if ther is a IMG and a SRC in that IMG, the AT 
user cannot know if there actually is any image at that URL. Nor can  he 
know if it is the right image.
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Tuesday, 15 April 2008 21:57:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:14 GMT