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.

~TJ
Received on Friday, 30 April 2010 15:08:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:08 GMT