W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2011

Re: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-31 / ISSUE-80 validation survey

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 02:26:13 +0200
To: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Message-ID: <20110422022613434925.94211768@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Aryeh Gregor, Thu, 21 Apr 2011 18:27:29 -0400:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 5:51 PM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>> So what and for whom would be better by omitting the @alt?

>  The alt text I
> cited is clearly "bogus" in the sense that it's added solely to evade
> validation errors, without any attempt to actually provide a useful
> text alternative to the image. I make no claims beyond that.

Your claim is that individuals insert images without proper @alt text 
into MediaWiki web pages.

But given that you sent us a bug report, it seems the "without any 
attempt" characterization points back to the developers. E.g. I don't 
believe for second that the average Wikipedia user adds anything 
"solely to evade validation errors".

> If you have questions about the evidence I provided, of a sort that
> would likely be germane should the issue be reopened, then it's
> possible this list is a correct place to ask.

I hope that Maciej takes note of our exchange.

If the chairs needs to see that images that are *not* inside a link but 
where the @alt text only duplicates a visible caption, then I have no 
problem with providing such evidence. E.g. here is a page in English 
were the main image has a bogus @alt, a bogus @title and a bogus 
visible caption (bogus since they all have the same content): 

Why do they add all those bogus values? Who knows. But the blame is, 
again, much more on the CMS makers than on the individual image 
Leif Halvard Silli
Received on Friday, 22 April 2011 00:26:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 16:25:58 UTC