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

Re: testing the theory that required alt = bad

From: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 16:22:10 +0100
Message-ID: <55687cf80804170822q7cc9v21b2282e14d03d35@mail.gmail.com>
To: "James Graham" <jg307@cam.ac.uk>
Cc: "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
Hi Graham
>This is exactly the kind of data that would be collected using the study I
previously proposed.

Great!
sorry if I did not pick up on this, the amount of correspondence on this
issue has lead me to miss some some or not read posts thoroughly enough.

Please sign me up to help on this.

regards
stevef


On 17/04/2008, James Graham <jg307@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> Steven Faulkner wrote:
>
> alt being required has been in the (X)HTML specs for some time (10
> > years?).
> > If a random sample valid (X)HTML pages is assessed and the alt values
> > are
> > analysed, it could be discerned what number of images have incorrect
> > uses of
> > alt="" or alt="bogus" .
> >
> [...]
>
> > any thoughts?
> >
> >
> This is exactly the kind of data that would be collected using the study I
> previously proposed.
>
> --
> "Eternity's a terrible thought. I mean, where's it all going to end?"
>  -- Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead
>



-- 
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, 17 April 2008 15:22:51 UTC

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