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

Re: HTML5 alt conformance criteria clarifications requested

From: James Graham <jg307@cam.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2008 00:07:32 +0100
Message-ID: <48A75DB4.9060705@cam.ac.uk>
To: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
CC: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>

Steven Faulkner wrote:
> Hi Jgraham,
>
> So what i can glean from you have written is that in cases where the
> image is the sole content of a link the use of the  term "photo page"
> in plain text without the {} would be the most appropriate value for
> the alt attribute (in the absence of  a 'real text alternative').
> as against the title/description which is used in flickr currently.
>
> So coming back back to my original question: would the current usage
> of the title/description by flickr be non conforming in HTML5?
>   
My impression is that the way flickr uses alt/title on pages where the 
photo is a link generally conforms to the spec inasmuch as a user could 
probably deduce the function of the link from the alt text. However, 
their approach of using the photo title in alt may not be ideal since 
the alt text is rather unhelpful in "conveying the purpose of the link". 
It also fails on edge cases like photos that have no title and, in cases 
where no text other than the title is added, photos where the title is 
delimited by curly braces (or indeed cases where the username is 
appended and the title starts with a curly brace and the username ends 
with one, if such a thing is possible).

In cases where the photo is not a link, flickr is, as far as I can tell, 
not conforming per spec.
Received on Saturday, 16 August 2008 23:08:10 GMT

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