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

Re: conformance levels [was: Re: alt crazyness ...]

From: Ben Boyle <benjamins.boyle@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 18:22:14 +1000
Message-ID: <5f37426b0805050122y32b0c45aq7772cac7d79d75c2@mail.gmail.com>
To: "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>

Good comments, and given that if the page already carries all the
necessary meaning I can and do use alt="" you are right, it all works
fine today. I guess I was looking for a assistive technology making a
clear association between the image and the figure/legend, but that
association isn't important (not compared to getting the content in
the first place).

So the question of omitting alt and conformance is simply a matter of
whether HTML5 (not WCAG) checkers report "you have omitted @alt" ...
or whether they do not. WCAG checkers will report this, right? If they
do, I do not need a HTML5 conformance checker to duplicate the
functionality of WCAG checkers. Just my opinion.



On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 6:09 PM, Smylers <Smylers@stripey.com> wrote:
>
>  Ben Boyle writes:
>
>  > Has anyone asked ... if I use <figure> and <legend> with an <img>, do
>  > I need to use @alt as well?
>
>  Yes.  Well, at least, the current spec wording considers it.  That a
>  <legend> is being used isn't the salient point; what matters is whether
>  any visible text on the page (whether in a <legend>, a <p>, or whatever)
>  is already a textual alternative of the image.  In that case alt="" is
>  mandated, to clearly indicate that no information is missing.
>
>  However if the legend doesn't replicate the image's content (for
>  example, because it's just a title) then clearly 'proper' alt text is
>  required.
>
>
>  > In the short term, I'd consider it essential for accessibility.
>
>  (I'm presuming by 'it' you mean providing full alt text, not just
>  alt="".)  If the <legend> already fully covers an image's content, how
>  does duplicating that in the alt text help accessibility?
>
>
>  > But longterm, when assistive technology catches up and penetrates the
>  > customer base (yes I know this takes ages), I'm fully confident figure
>  > + legend could be enough in many situations and @alt should be
>  > optional
>
>  What would this future technology need do such that you think it'd be OK
>  not to provide alt text for images with legends?
>
>
>  > (and I could use alt="" I know, but I'd be happy to leave it out. Less
>  > typing.)
>
>  But harder to distinguish as definitively not needing an alternative
>  from other cases where no alt text is provided.
>
>  Smylers
>
>
Received on Monday, 5 May 2008 08:22:56 UTC

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