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

[Bug 11027] New: provide text alternatives for images feedback from Everett Zufelt

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 15:15:40 +0000
To: public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <bug-11027-2495@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11027

           Summary: provide text alternatives for images feedback from
                    Everett Zufelt
           Product: HTML WG
           Version: unspecified
          Platform: PC
        OS/Version: Windows NT
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: pre-LC1 alt techniques (editor: Steven Faulkner)
        AssignedTo: faulkner.steve@gmail.com
        ReportedBy: faulkner.steve@gmail.com
         QAContact: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
                CC: mike@w3.org, public-html-wg-issue-tracking@w3.org,
                    public-html@w3.org, faulkner.steve@gmail.com,
                    everett@zufelt.ca


"Example 5.1
Here's an example of an image being used as a decorative banner for a persons
blog, the image offers no information and so should have an empty alt
attribute.
While it is not unacceptable to include decorative images inline, it is
recommended if they are purely decorative to include the image using CSS."

Everett wrote:

I agree with this completely, but more guidance is required to guide readers
about what is and is not "decorative".  As an example, I as a blind user, am
very unclear about what you  consider to be decorative, because there is no
description of the image that is decorative.  It would be nice to provide a
couple of further examples, and with each to provide a description of the image
so that readers who cannot see the image can fully understand the concept.  An
excellent example of alt attributes being context sensitive, within your
example the image is decorative, but within the larger document the image
communicates information (as it shows what is considered decorative).


I would also like to see an example that makes it clear that the HTML5 editor's
explanation on 4.8.1.1.6 is completely incorrect, as some may have already read
this before your far superior changes replace it.


"Examples where the image is purely decorative despite being relevant would
include things like a photo of the Black Rock City landscape in a blog post
about an event at Burning Man, or an image of a painting inspired by a poem, on
a page reciting that poem."

"Example 6.4
Here is another example of the same image used in a different context. In this
case it is used to add a bit of medieval themed decoration to an advertisement.
As the image bears no direct relation to the content of the page it is
considered appropriate to use an empty alt attribute. It can also be considered
appropriate to provide a brief description of the image as some users who
cannot view images appreciate having information provided about images of
paintings
and photographs regardless of the context in which the images are used. As
decisions about when to provide a text alternative are based on context of use,
both options are considered to be conforming HTML5."

Everett wrote:
Complete disagreement here.  The image should always have alt set (unless it is
decorative".  An image of a photo is not decorative, it leands content to the
page, even if the author is unaware of the affect that the image is having on
the page.  What I am trying to say that there is a difference betwenn a
decorative image like a spacer or stylized hr and an image of something like a
person, a sunset, etc.  The later need descriptions as they influence the
reader's interpretation of the content.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 13 October 2010 15:15:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:20 UTC