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

Re: ISSUE-122 shalott-example: Call for revisions

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2011 12:56:30 -0800
Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <8F2CDF95-59CF-4BB0-A374-C9BCC575BC4B@apple.com>
To: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>

On Feb 7, 2011, at 12:46 PM, Laura Carlson wrote:

> fyi...
> 
> Alt Issue-31 encompasses three areas/is about three questions
> regarding the img element:
> 
>   1. Guidance for conformance checkers: "Which set of validity
> requirements should HTML5 adopt?"
>   2. The <img> element definition verbiage: "What verbiage should
> HTML5 use for the first two paragraphs of the img element definition?"
>   3. Text alternative examples and their values: "Where/who will
> define requirements on the possible values of text alternatives
> examples?"
> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElementSurveyConformaceChoices

The original definition of the issue only appears to cover the first of these questions, not 2 and 3:

"The img element section allows instances where the <img> element may have no text alternative, not just a null alt attribute for eye candy, but no text alternative for content. The issue involves ensuring HTML5 provides a way for automatic validators to programmatically detect the presence or absence of short text alternatives on the img element. The issue involves ensuring images have accessible alternatives. It asks the question, "What should be done when a text alternative is unknown/unavailable?

Requiring a set of machine testable, programmatically valid options helps ensure that images have complete structure. If no accessible option can be determined, then the resulting structure should be considered invalid. Text alternatives are essential for accessibility. Enabling automatic validators to programmatically detect the presence or absence of text alternatives raises public awareness of Web accessibility in general and aids in accessibility education in particular."

It's true that Change Proposals have wandered into the other two question areas, but I would not assume they are in scope for ISSUE-31.

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Monday, 7 February 2011 20:57:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:22 GMT