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

Re: Discussion on Change Proposal for ISSUE-66

From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 14:56:03 +0900
Cc: 'Maciej Stachowiak' <mjs@apple.com>, 'Matt May' <mattmay@adobe.com>, 'HTML WG' <public-html@w3.org>, public-html-a11y@w3.org
Message-Id: <D3FDBFE8-90DA-4C56-BB0D-EA7DBB969C40@apple.com>
To: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
Whether or not the text in the spec. is a good idea, it's worth noting that picking an image with none of the useful EXIF tags filled in (for example: Exif ImageDescription (270, 0x010E)) constitutes a strawman.  No-one is suggesting that anyone can deduce a description of an image from the technical parameters.  Maciej said "relevant" EXIF tags, please.

The point has also been raised that 'deluding' the AT into thinking it has a viable description in the alt text (when in fact it says "an image" or something equally useless) might discourage it from looking for useful EXIF data or doing analysis.

John asked to turn things on their head:  do I take it that people think the spec. should say that the AT MUST NOT try to find EXIF tags, do OCR or scene analysis, inspect the file name for possible useful information, etc.?

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Friday, 22 January 2010 05:56:38 GMT

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