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

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

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 09:39:41 +0200
To: "William Loughborough" <love26@gorge.net>
Cc: public-html@w3.org, wai-xtech@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.ua20inef64w2qv@annevk-t60.oslo.opera.com>

On Tue, 13 May 2008 01:49:43 +0200, William Loughborough  
<love26@gorge.net> wrote:
>> From    : Anne van Kesteren[mailto:annevk@opera.com]
>> I don't really see how this is fair. That there's disagreement over
> certain things related to accessibility doesn't mean that accessibility
> isn't taken seriously. It just means that not everyone is on the same  
> side
> of the table when it comes to that subject.
>
> "that subject"?

Accessibility?


> Is it possible that after a decade of attempts to integrate  
> accessibility into
> design we are still in an us/them configuration?

I'm not sure what this means, but it does seem that after a decade of  
usage people have started getting divergent views on the success of having  
the alt="" attribute be required for instance.


> Accessibility to the Web is the cornerstone of the World Wide Web, not  
> some bolted-on characteristic.

I don't think anyone necessarily disagrees with that. It's the how we get  
there that people disagree over.


> When an attempt is made to sacrifice one of the "poster children" of the  
> effort (the compulsory
> nature of the @alt), it will soon emerge that there are those of us for  
> whom this "child" is as important as our own.

That's ok, most people have strong views on one part or another.


> No matter how hard one tries to disguise the implicit bigotry in this  
> "war of @alt - now in it's
> second decade - the fact that keeps shining through is that <img>  
> without required @alt is so unacceptable as to beggar understanding.
>
> The position that because there are cases in which its inclusion is  
> inconvenient and deserves
> another round of justification for accessibility's seamless  
> inclusion/integration is patently absurd.
>
> We are all in this together We are all members of one another
> Universal Connection/Accessibility is a Human Right.

I don't really see how it is patently absurd. Dismissing the scenario  
where the author of the HTML can't provide alt="" and therefore makes  
something up to get rid of validation messages will not help us move  
forward here. Whether this is addressed using <img src=vacation.jpg  
noalt>, <img src=vacation.jpg alt=Photo important>, <img  
src=vacation.jpg>, etc. is what is under discussion now.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Tuesday, 13 May 2008 07:47:38 GMT

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