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

Re: [html4all] HTML5 Alternative Text, and Authoring Tools

From: James Graham <jg307@cam.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 01 May 2008 22:58:48 +0100
Message-ID: <481A3D18.7000302@cam.ac.uk>
To: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
CC: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, John Foliot <foliot@wats.ca>, HTML4All <list@html4all.org>, public-html@w3.org, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>

Steven Faulkner wrote:

> I have made it clear what is required from you [2], it is not
> incumbent on anybody but you to back up your claims. Currently you
> provide nothing more than your opinion as a basis for making the alt
> optional in the spec. The HTML working group deserves more than this.

Whilst I fear to reply to this thread for worry it will create an 
avalanche of emails that could suck up time that could be more 
productively used, I should just point out that *no one* has presented 
data from a useful alt study yet. That applies equally to people who 
believe the balance of arguments weigh in favour of allowing alt to be 
omitted where no reasonable alt test is avaliable /and/ those who 
believe it must always be present in conforming documents.

Furthermore there is no reason that people with one of these opinions 
needs to provide data whilst people with the other opinion do not. In 
particular there is no reason to believe that because something was in 
HTML 4 or is in some other spec it should be subject to less scrutiny 
than new ideas.

Lastly, I do not understand why it is perceived as the responsibility of 
the editor to do any study that other members of the group feel is 
required. That expectation will not scale.

-- 
"Mixed up signals
Bullet train
People snuffed out in the brutal rain"
--Conner Oberst
Received on Thursday, 1 May 2008 21:59:33 UTC

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