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

Re: Flickr and alt

From: Smylers <Smylers@stripey.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 11:48:42 +0100
To: public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <20080819104842.GB5699@stripey.com>

Gez Lemon writes:

> If you do bulk uploads on Flickr intended for your friends and loved
> ones, it's reasonable that you might decide to add text alternatives
> later, or maybe never get around to adding them.

But in either of those cases, is the lack of alt text Flickr's fault?

> But do you think the resulting content should be considered compliant?

If Flickr's content otherwise conforms to the HTML specs, and they've
done everything the spec says, then why shouldn't they be considered to
have complied with it?

> Why is it so important that inaccessible content should be considered
> compliant?

Because we want the best possible HTML on all sites, even those which
aren't accessible.

Clearly such a site wouldn't claim WCAG compliance.  But HTML compliance
and WCAG compliance are different things.

Smylers
Received on Tuesday, 19 August 2008 10:49:22 GMT

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