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

Re: comments on 'private use' section of proposal - Sanity check

From: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 09:29:25 +0200
Message-ID: <AANLkTin-KeNqvDM6i4dQeTQtxAPtUOeZnOhxozmllzR1@mail.gmail.com>
To: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>
Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
hi benjamin,

>The exemption does not change whether or not email clients provide "the
ability  to add a text alternative".

I didn't say that, i said whether the document is considered conforming will
change depending on who i send it to. Which is what the exception states.

But unless the tool allows me to add an alternative text (and this may be a
simple as being able to edit the source html), the only conforming documents
with an image i can produce are those that are meant for people who are
known to be able to view and understand the content of the image.

regards
Stevef.


On 19 July 2010 08:54, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>wrote:

> On 18 Jul 2010, at 14:45, Steven Faulkner wrote:
> > The private email exception does not apply to  apply to a class of
> authoring tools, it only applies if you send a private email to a person or
> people who you know can see the image.
> >
> > So depending on who I send it to, will decide if it is conforming or non
> conforming so unless the email client provides the ability for me to add a
> text alternative it WILL allow non conforming documents to be published.
>
> The exemption does not change whether or not email clients provide "the
> ability  to add a text alternative". On the contrary, the draft envisages
> clients provide that ability in the very next sentence:
>
> "However, even in such cases it is strongly recommended that alternative
> text be included (as appropriate according to the kind of image involved, as
> described in the above entries), so that the e-mail is still usable should
> the user use a mail client that does not support images, or should the
> document be forwarded on to other users whose abilities might not include
> easily seeing images."
>
>
> http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#an-image-in-an-e-mail-or-private-document-intended-for-a-specific-person-who-is-known-to-be-able-to-view-images
>
> Also the spec explicitly says "markup generators (such as WYSIWYG authoring
> tools) should, wherever possible, obtain alternative text from their users".
>
> http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#guidance-for-markup-generators
>
> I don't think anyone disputes that it is possible for an email client to
> try to obtain alternative text?
>
> The exemption only affects whether authoring tools can add an image to an
> document without also requiring the user to add a text alternative before
> sending or otherwise sharing it. If it did not exist, then they would have
> generated detectably non-conforming markup and would therefore be
> non-conforming themselves.
>
> --
> Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis




-- 
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 Monday, 19 July 2010 07:30:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:18 UTC