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

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

From: Matt Morgan-May <mattmay@adobe.com>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 13:04:22 -0700
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
CC: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, HTML Working Group <public-html@w3.org>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C44DF0D6.7CB0%mattmay@adobe.com>

On 5/12/08 11:00 AM, "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 2008-05-12 at 10:46 -0700, Matt Morgan-May wrote:
> [...]
>> No, I'm afraid that people who are tired of HTML 4.01 requiring @alt will
>> flock to HTML5 since it gives them the freedom to ignore accessibility
>> wholesale.
> 
> I hope you've overstated your case and that you don't
> actually subscribe to a position that extreme.

Yes, that was somewhat of an overstatement. However, we have seen many of
the accessibility-related features of HTML stripped at this point, @alt
being only the most egregious example. Taken together, it's reasonable to
conclude that accessibility is not being taken seriously, and I doubt that
authors will do much to reverse the trend when they're given an inferior
toolset with which to do it.

> There's a huge difference between the class of C programs
> that the compiler will accept and the class of C programs
> that don't have bugs.
> 
> Surely HTML conformance and HTML accessibility
> are analogous, no?
> 
> i.e. quality goes beyond conformance.

True, but the quality of HTML5 content is only potentially as good as the
spec will allow. At this point, HTML5 as proposed doesn't even offer the
facilities needed to support accessibility on top of it, much less the
features once baked into the specification for the benefit of accessibility.

-
m
Received on Monday, 12 May 2008 20:05:11 GMT

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