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

Re: alt crazyness (Re: alt and authoring practices)

From: Smylers <Smylers@stripey.com>
Date: Sun, 4 May 2008 03:27:40 +0100
To: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20080504022740.GH11992@stripey.com>

Robert J Burns writes:

> On May 3, 2008, at 1:56 PM, Smylers wrote:
> 
> >  1 This webpage conforms to the HTML 5 standard except that it  
> >    includes unknown images from external sources for which we are
> >    unable to provide alterternative text.
> 
> Few should ever be authoring a page where they do not know why they
> included an image on the page (perhaps this is part of the same
> misconception I'm already trying to dispel).

Yes, I was thinking of the bulk-photo upload we've discussed elsewhere
in this thread.

> All anyone has to do is remove the image from the page, decide whether
> the page is missing something important in not having that image
> there.

In the case of a page which exists to display a photo, I think everybody
would agree the photo is an important part of the page.

> If it is, put the image back and briefly describe what was missing
> without the image.

But that involves looking at the image, something which the HTML author
isn't doing in the bulk-upload case.

> Perhaps you or someone could point us to a real world example of a
> page where you think the purpose of the image on the page is
> inexplicable.

It isn't inexplicable; it's just unknown, being from an external source.

> That way we could continue the dialog and demonstrate that it's not
> the case.

Asking me to provide some information so that you can examine it and
consider whether it's persuasive seems a reasonable way to continue the
discussion; but asking me to provide some information which you have
already decided to dismiss as "not the case" -- pre-deciding that
whatever I saw will be wrong! -- doesn't seem a scientific way to
conduct a discussion.

Smylers
Received on Sunday, 4 May 2008 02:43:16 UTC

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