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 19:29:53 +0100
Message-ID: <55687cf80805131129n50ea17bfsdabd81559419ae47@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

hi najiec

clearly states:

"The remainder of the authoring section of 3.14.2 is ***informative***
and provides examples of how images are used within web pages and what
are to be considered as appropriate text alternatives."


  Robert said: "According to the new draft section, the alt attribute is not
> to be used for description of photographs that are critical content."
>
>  Would you agree with Robert's interpretation of the AI54 proposal (this is
> what he meant by "the new draft section")?

no

it clearly states
"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. Therefore, there is no single 'right' or
'correct' piece of alt text for any particular image. In addition to
providing a short text alternative that gives a brief description of
the non-text content, also providing supplemental content through
another means when appropriate may be useful."

see ya!

2008/5/13 Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>:
>
>  On May 13, 2008, at 11:09 AM, Steven Faulkner wrote:
>
>
> >
> > > 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.
> >
>
>  It does have the following mandatory conformance requirements:
>
>  "The alt attribute must present and must contain a text alternative that
> serves the equivalent purpose as the image. What is to be considered an
> equivalent purpose, depends on the way an image is used."
>
>  Then the advice expands on what is considered equivalent for different uses
> of images. The only case where empty alt is suggested is for purely
> decorative images.
>
>  Robert said: "According to the new draft section, the alt attribute is not
> to be used for description of photographs that are critical content."
>
>  Would you agree with Robert's interpretation of the AI54 proposal (this is
> what he meant by "the new draft section")?
>
>  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 18:30:34 UTC

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