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

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

From: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 04:22:29 +0100
Message-ID: <55687cf80805012022h4da0dd92g9df86d4a543c474e@mail.gmail.com>
To: "James Graham" <jg307@cam.ac.uk>
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>

jgraham wrote:
>I should just point out that *no one* has presented data from a useful alt
> study yet.

So statements[1]  by the editor about the "evidence" suggesting that
making the alt optional "is going to improve the accessibility of the
Web"  are duplicitous

"We truly do believe in  research, hard data, and analysis, rather
than hypotheticals; and we truly do believe that evidence suggests
that what we are arguing for is going to improve the accessibility of
the Web."
[1] http://juicystudio.com/article/html5-alt-text-authoring-tools.php#comment3

>  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.

Simply because he has claimed that his decision in the spec about the
alt is based on research "rather than hypotheticals".

regards
stevef


2008/5/1 James Graham <jg307@cam.ac.uk>:
> 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
>



-- 
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 Friday, 2 May 2008 03:23:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:17 GMT