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

Re: HTML5 alt conformance criteria clarifications requested

From: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2008 16:15:07 +0100
Message-ID: <55687cf80808160815v76e1b0e9uddc3d0b9229913c9@mail.gmail.com>
To: "James Graham" <jg307@cam.ac.uk>
Cc: "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, "W3C WAI-XTECH" <wai-xtech@w3.org>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>

hi jgraham,
yes, my bad you are correct on the title/description.

> I believe the spec currently requires that flickr set @alt={photo} or
> similar.

so does this mean it is what is required in these cases or you are not
clear on what is required?


>If you look at how the title and description fields are actually
> used on flickr it's not clear to me what you would gain by setting the alt
> to the value of either of these fields

In the case of these example flickr pages:
http://www.flickr.com/groups/cats/pool/
http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=people&w=all

Are the img alts non conforming to HTML5 because they use
title/description text rather than {photo} or something similar?

regards
steve


2008/8/16 James Graham <jg307@cam.ac.uk>:
> Steven Faulkner wrote:
>>
>> The Current HTM5 spec introduces changes to the criteria for
>> conforming to HTML5 in cases where no 'real alternative text' is
>> available.
>>
>> It would be useful to have some real world use cases clarified in
>> respect to the changes:
>>
>> 1. When a user uploads an image in flickr (http://www.flickr.com) they
>> are given the opportunity to provide a 'description', if they choose
>> to provide a description it is placed into the alt attribute of the
>> image (plus ' by xxxx').
>>
>
> In the interests of accuracy, I should point out that flickr asks for both a
> "title" and a "description" of the image. The /title/ is used inline in the
> page and in both the alt attribute and the title attribute; the description
> is just used inline in the page.
>
> Arguably one could say that a title is not a text equivalent but users would
> be best served if UAs use @title in a manner similar to @alt if no alt text
> is available (with freedom to do something like say "image entitled foo"
> rather than just "foo"). The argument against that is that the title is
> already available inline so requiring the UA to present it twice wouldn't
> help anyone.
>>
>> Is this conforming in HTML5? if not what would be an appropriate alt
>> attribute content if no 'real alternative text' is available?
>>
>
> I believe the spec currently requires that flickr set @alt={photo} or
> similar. If you look at how the title and description fields are actually
> used on flickr it's not clear to me what you would gain by setting the alt
> to the value of either of these fields; it is unusual for either to provide
> an actual description of the photo and both are available inline anyway. If
> flickr were to use the HTML 5 <figure> element, there would even be an
> explicit link between the figure and its description, without needing it to
> be repeated.
>



-- 
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 Saturday, 16 August 2008 15:15:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:22 GMT