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

Re: Another view of alt optionality

From: Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd) <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
Date: Wed, 07 May 2008 19:07:39 +0100
Message-ID: <4821EFEB.3080305@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
CC: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>



Mark Baker wrote:

 > I just added this to the Wiki page on "alt"[1];
 >
 > The primary purpose of a markup language specification like HTML is
 > that it be able to be used to construct a document with a specific
 > meaning as determined by a publisher, and to permit a consumer to
 > reconstruct that meaning when in receipt of the document.  Whether a
 > given document uses alt text or not matters not to that purpose.

Can you please explain that last observation ?  If, as an unsighted
user (for example), I am unable to reconstruct the meaning of
a given document because a part of that meaning lies in images
that are inaccessible to me, and if -- had the producer added
appropriate ALT text -- I would have been able to reconstruct
the meaning of the document, then surely it matters a great
deal that such a document cannot be reconstructed solely because
the producer thereof failed to include appropriate ALT text,
does it not ?

Philip TAYLOR
Received on Wednesday, 7 May 2008 18:08:23 GMT

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