W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2010

Re: ISSUE-66 image-analysis: informal consensus check

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 08:07:23 -0700
Message-ID: <j2odd0fbad1004300807v4f33913csc57dad6daa61e971@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, public-html WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 4:27 AM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> Just a passing observation: if there isn't consensus, the next step is to
> look for which proposals have would attract the weakest objections.
> Knowledge of which proposals each of you might support is no where near as
> useful as knowing which proposals you would actively object to, which in
> turn is no where near as useful as knowing the basis for such objections.
> An occasional +1 here or there is fine, but seeing three such inputs is what
> caused me to send this note.  I encourage each of you (and all of the
> members of the working group for that matter) to identify which proposals
> you see as actively harmful (and to say why) and/or to focus on suggestions
> in the form of concrete changes to existing proposals which would result in
> something you would no longer object to.

In more detail, then:

I support the no-change proposal.  I think the language as it exists
in the spec is adequate and does not convey any harmful implications.

I would be okay with expanding it because, frankly, giving
implementors ideas about how to present badly-constructed images in a
more useful way is good.  I want to make the world as good as possible
for those with disabilities.

I object to removing it entirely.  I believe the idea that it suggests
that leaving @alt off is incorrect.  I also believe that striking it
has the possibility of convincing some implementors that they
*shouldn't* attempt to present the best possible experience to every
user, using whatever tools they have at hand.  Punishing users for an
author's mistake isn't the right way to do things.

Received on Friday, 30 April 2010 15:08:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:01 UTC