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

Re: One more thought about requiring the alt to add to the pile

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 05:50:48 +0000 (UTC)
To: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Cc: "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>, wai-liaison@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0804180548590.22086@hixie.dreamhostps.com>

On Fri, 18 Apr 2008, Steven Faulkner wrote:
>
> The spec[1] currently states: "In some cases, the image is a critical 
> part of the content. .... In a rare subset of these cases, there might 
> be no alternative text available. "
> 
> Given that it is only in very rare cases (a "rare subset" of "some 
> cases") where it is considered legitimate in the spec to leave out the 
> alt attribute. And these "rare subset" of cases are a clearly defined 
> class of site "a photo upload site".  Would it not be better to 
> require/encourage the relatively small number of AT vendors to provide a 
> feature that exposes images with alt="" (in case the photo site CMS has 
> been designed ot add alt="" automatically), that a user can enable when 
> he/she visits these sites?.

It's more than just photo upload sites. For example, the street view 
feature in Google Maps, or, as previously mentioned, Rorschach tests.

Also, there are plenty of decorative images on these sites that need to 
have alt="" and that aren't critical images.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Friday, 18 April 2008 05:53:29 UTC

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