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

Re: HTML Action Item 54 - ...draft text for HTML 5 spec to require producers/authors to include @alt on img elements.

From: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 19:09:27 +0100
Message-ID: <55687cf80805131109m2bcce768p8d0f23017969ff8c@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: "Robert J Burns" <rob@robburns.com>, "Andrew Sidwell" <w3c@andrewsidwell.co.uk>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, "W3C WAI-XTECH" <wai-xtech@w3.org>, wai-liaison@w3.org

>the AI54 proposal says non-empty alt is mandatory for any image that
is not purely decorative.

well no it does not, it does not MANDATE anything as it clearly states
that the advice in informative not normative.

2008/5/13 Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>:
>
>  On May 13, 2008, at 6:52 AM, Robert J Burns wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Hi Andrew,
> >
> > On May 13, 2008, at 12:53 PM, Andrew Sidwell wrote:
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I have reservations about adding to this thread, but so it goes...  (I
> fear I'm making the same point Dave Singer rather excellently made.)
> > >
> > > Steven Faulkner wrote:
> > >
> > > > dear maciej,
> > > >
> > > > > It is not a matter of opinion. Making a use-case non-conforming is
> by
> > > > >
> > > > definition not handling it for purposes of document conformance. It
> > > > may be a >conscious choice to reject a use case, but it is not
> > > > support.
> > > > you assume without justification, that it is desirable or right to
> > > > accommodate use cases that  result in important data and/or data
> > > > relationships not being provided. i don't subscribe to this.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I would be happy if someone (or several someones) in favour of making
> alt mandatory in all cases would answer very simply: How does a blind
> photographer mark up a photo, which is known to be critical content, but
> which she herself cannot describe?
> > >
> >
> > According to the new draft section, the alt attribute is not to be used
> for description of photographs that are critical content.
> >
>
>  I don't think that is what the AI54 proposal says. Under "Images of
> Pictures" (which includes photographs):
>
>  "Appropriate alt text value for a picture is a brief description, or name.
> As in all alt text authoring decisions, writing suitable text equivalents
> for pictures requires human judgment. The alt text value is subjective to
> the context where the image is used and the page author's writing style."
>
>  The example given is:
>  <figure>
>  <img src="1100670787_6a7c664aef.jpg" alt="My dog, Bubbles, digging in the
> sand on the beach">
>  <legend>Bubbles traveled everywhere with us.</legend>
>  </figure>
>
>  The AI54 proposal says non-empty alt is mandatory for any image that is not
> purely decorative.
>
>  Regards,
>  Maciej
>
>



-- 
with regards

Steve Faulkner
Technical Director - TPG Europe
Director - Web Accessibility Tools Consortium

www.paciellogroup.com | www.wat-c.org
Web Accessibility Toolbar -
http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html
Received on Tuesday, 13 May 2008 18:10:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:55 UTC