W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > September 2012

Re: Adaptive Image Element Proposal

From: Mathew Marquis <mat@matmarquis.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 16:55:05 -0400
Cc: Adrian Roselli <Roselli@algonquinstudios.com>, Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, Peter Winnberg <peter.winnberg@gmail.com>, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, "public-respimg@w3.org" <public-respimg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <B6359B11-EBE1-448B-B389-773A96030993@matmarquis.com>
To: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>

On Sep 4, 2012, at 4:48 PM, Laura Carlson wrote:

> Hi Adrian and all,
> 
> On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Adrian Roselli
> <Roselli@algonquinstudios.com> wrote:
>>> From: Mathew Marquis [mailto:mat@matmarquis.com]
> 
>> I don't take Laura's message to say that @alt should appear on both <picture> and <img>, just that the ARIA role isn't a fit. I only mention this because I didn't read her message as an endorsement of a double-@alt, just on @alt over ARIA.
> 
> That is correct.
> 
>> I'd rather see <picture>'s fallback rely on the existing momentum <img> has with its @alt -- just rely on <img> to be the fallback both for the alternate image and the @alt text. Leave @alt off <picture> altogether.
> 
> +1

Definitely the prevailing sentiment. I think we’re largely decided on this, barring any objections?

> 
>> I am also trying to look at this in a vacuum, without bringing <figure> into play and without drawing comparisons to <object> and <canvas>, partly because so many young web devs I know have no concept of how those elements work and aren't in a position to make the same analogous connections we are.
>> 
>> Or am I missing something fundamental here?
> 
> I don't think so. The simpler the solution the better.  Complexity
> confuses and leads to errors. This is especially true when complexity
> is imposed directly on run of the mill  authors/web designers. Build
> on the success of alt for the SHORT description.
> 
> As an on-page or off-page LONG description, full semantics are
> provided with longdesc. And as soon as ISSUE-30 is settled
> successfully, it could be made available to <picture>. Or the picture
> element could allow for semantic programmatically determinable in-page
> rich text long description, if a description element was added to the
> proposal:
> 
> <picture>
> <img src="image.jpg" alt="text alternative">
> <desc>structured rich text description with headings, lists, tables, etc.</desc>
> </picture>

Definitely something we’ll be keeping a close eye on. We can add a note/link to ISSUE-30 in the proposal, as well.

> 
> Best Regards,
> Laura
> -- 
> Laura L. Carlson
Received on Tuesday, 4 September 2012 20:55:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:34 UTC