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

Re: alt and authoring practices

From: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 15:51:22 +0100
Message-ID: <55687cf80804210751x2f1804c1xd8d0a678b86e6aa9@mail.gmail.com>
To: "David Poehlman" <poehlman1@comcast.net>
Cc: "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>, "Dave Singer" <singer@apple.com>, "James Graham" <jg307@cam.ac.uk>, public-html@w3.org, wai-xtech@w3.org, wai-liaison@w3.org

Hi david,
All and sundry have had years to provide input into WCAG 2.0, and many
people have during the several last calls for public comment.
I advise you (or anybody) that if you have a disagreement with the
WCAG 2.0's advice in regards to what constitutes and appropiate text
alternative, take it up with the relevant people in WAI.

regards
stevef

On 21/04/2008, David Poehlman <poehlman1@comcast.net> wrote:
> It is not my interpretation, it was what we were taught in grammar school.
> Alt means replace.  if you are going to describe, it needs to be done in
> another way.  Yes, the guidelines are rong.  Their "interpretation" has lead
> to far too many alt="blue ball"s.  I have not encountered an image worth
> putting on the web asside from some little dressy things to aid in cognition
> or even less than dressy things for that purpose which cannot be replaced.
> red left arrow means left correct? ruler can be replashed with ----------
> correct????
>
>
>
>
> On Apr 21, 2008, at 3:37 AM, Steven Faulkner wrote:
>
>
> Hi David,
>
> > replace not describe.
> >
>
> This may be your interpretation of what constitutes an approriate alt,
> but it is not always the interpretation that the w3C web content
> accessibility guidelnes 1 & 2 recommends. The  correctness of "replace
> not describe" depends  upon the context that the image is used in and
> whether the information that is in the image can be "replaced" using
> text.
>
> regards
> stevef
>
> On 16/04/2008, David Poehlman <poehlman1@comcast.net> wrote:
> > replace not describe.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Dave Singer" <singer@apple.com>
> > To: "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>; "Steven Faulkner"
> > <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
> > Cc: "James Graham" <jg307@cam.ac.uk>; <public-html@w3.org>;
> > <wai-xtech@w3.org>; <wai-liaison@w3.org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 12:43 PM
> > Subject: Re: alt and authoring practices
> >
> >
> >
> > At 13:29  +0200 16/04/08, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:23:06 +0200, Steven Faulkner
> > > <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I don't quite follow the logic, but that is probably due to my
> > > > incapacity to understand, but I am pretty sure you are making a
> > > > worthwhile point and will cogitate on it further.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > With nobody having data of usage on the Web the position of the
> > > > > editor seems more reasonable to me.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > And that is your prerogative as a member of the working group, I
> > > > myself do not place faith in the editor as being all seeing and all
> > > > knowing in the absence of data.
> > > >
> > >
> > > If my reasoning is correct the position of the editor is supported
> > > by logic which is why his point seems more correct to me. Not
> > > because he's the editor.
> > >
> > > (You assume a minority case is likely to occur more often and the
> > > editor assumes a majority case is likely to occur more often.)
> > >
> >
> > I do wonder if we are trying to pack too much into one attribute.
> > Really, this is brainstorming and may be a bad idea, but are we
> > trying to pack "what is the alt string" and "how trustworthy is the
> > alt string" into the same attribute, when it can't be done?  the rest
> > is somewhat in jest...
> >
> > maybe we need a second attribute alt-trust-level:
> >
> > 0   the string is empty or may as well be, or missing:  it's worthless
> > 5   the string contains facts even a stupid program could work out
> > from the image itself (e.g. width and height)
> > 10 the string contains facts that were deduced automatically with
> > some effort from the image itself
> > 15 the string contains automatically collected ancillary data not
> > found in the image (e.g. time of capture, camera)
> > 20 the string contains human-entered data of a basic descriptive nature
> > 25 the string contains a rather detailed description of the image
> > 30 the string contains an analysis of the meaning of the picture as
> > well as its description
> > 100 the string is a doctoral thesis, analyzing the image from every
> > possible direction, including references to mythological, symbolical
> > and historical references, history of the place/people shown,
> > analysis of their health, state of mind, an aesthetic analysis of the
> > composition, an analysis of the technical competence, and so on
> >
> > i'm guessing some people here think everyone should achieve level 20.  :-)
> >
> > by the way, can one provide alt strings in multiple languages and/or
> > scripts?  what would happen if someone tried level 100?
> > --
> > David Singer
> > Apple/QuickTime
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>
>
> --
> Jonnie Appleseed
> with his
> Hands-On Technolog(eye)s
> reducing technology's disabilities
> one byte at a time
>
>


-- 
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 Monday, 21 April 2008 14:52:24 GMT

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