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

RE: Adaptive Image Element Proposal

From: Adrian Roselli <Roselli@algonquinstudios.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 20:55:47 +0000
To: "Konopacki, Daniel" <Daniel.Konopacki@disney.com>, Anselm Hannemann <info@anselm-hannemann.com>
CC: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, Mathew Marquis <mat@matmarquis.com>, 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: <0CB063710346B446A5B5DC305BF8EA3E2747A4@Ex2010MBX.development.algonquinstudios.com>

To me, the @alt-like solution for <picture> is <img> @alt. I understand that in the future that can be annoying, but I foresee the spec adapting before that comes to a head (or rather, browser support/interpretation of the spec).

I am not opposed to @alt on <picture>, but I don't think it needs to be a requirement. I do think it will be mis-used.

I also understand that far to few people use @alt properly today.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Konopacki, Daniel [mailto:Daniel.Konopacki@disney.com]
> 
> Just for clarity's sake, mine isn't an explicit advocacy for @alt on <picture>,
> simply an @alt-like solution for <picture> outside of <img>.
> 
> Back to your point, however. I fully agree that there will be developers who
> would not use this approach; the same can be said about @alt in general,
> however. There are extensive examples today where current <img>
> elements contain no @alt. Just because some choose not to use it shouldn't
> be a basis for dismissal.
> 
> Further, I would argue that having the option gives a developer greater
> flexibility. If I have a site I'm deploying that I feel confident the majority of
> my target market audience - to what my business feels is an acceptable level
> of tolerance - has the <picture> element, why should I be forced to include
> <img> simply to provide a textual short description? This makes less sense to
> me than having an option for employing a short descriptor.
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adrian Roselli [mailto:Roselli@algonquinstudios.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 1:15 PM
> To: Konopacki, Daniel; Anselm Hannemann
> Cc: Leif Halvard Silli; Laura Carlson; Mathew Marquis; Peter Winnberg; Steve
> Faulkner; HTML WG; public-respimg@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Adaptive Image Element Proposal
> 
> See my response to Anselm's response (to my response to his response...).
> 
> I am not opposed to @alt existing on <picture> *as well as* <img>, but I
> don't think it makes sense and I don't think developers will use it.
> 
> I have no data to back that up, just experience and gut feeling.
> 
> 
> > From: Konopacki, Daniel [mailto:Daniel.Konopacki@disney.com]
> >
> > I agree with Anselm's assessment here. If there were either @alt or
> > @alt equivalent for <picture>, I feel that devs could be given an option. For
> brevity's sake, a simple example:
> >
> > Example 1:
> > <picture>
> >   <img src="file.jpg" alt="Some description" /> </picture>
> >
> > Example 2:
> > <picture alt="Some description">
> >   <img src="file.jpg" alt="Some description" /> </picture>
> >
> > In the first example we leave off the @alt attribute from the
> > <picture> tag. Browsers requiring a short text description would then
> > fallback to the <img> @alt value. In the second example, however,
> > there are two @alt attributes. For browsers supporting <picture>, they
> > utilize the <picture> tag's @alt value, while the others will fallback
> > to the <img> @alt value. This both allows devs to write the markup in a
> more simplistic way (Example 1) and provides a path to future deployments
> (Example 2 allows the complete omission of <img>).
> >
> > > From: Anselm Hannemann [mailto:info@anselm-hannemann.com]
> > >
> > > Yes, you miss a point:
> > > In 10-15 years we are not needing the img-element anymore. But then it
> would be required by spec.
> > > This is what I fear of.
> > >
> > > -Anselm
> > >
> > > Am Donnerstag, 6. September 2012 um 20:22 schrieb Adrian Roselli:
> > > > > > Hi Lief,
> > > > > > > Needless complexity: The complexity is related to lack of
> > > > > > > support for <picture>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's right. That is why Mat will be changing the draft spec
> > > > > > to use <img>  with alt for the short text alternative not
> > > > > > <picture>  and a new text alternative method.
> > > > > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Sep/0016.h
> > > > > > tml
> > > > > >
> > > > > What? Why do we rely on the img-fallback(!) now?
> > > > > I always thought the img-element is not required but optional
> > > > > (for fallback methods). If we now rely on img for alt-attribute
> > > > > this would require to alway have an img-tag inside of the picture-tag.
> This is what I call complexity.
> > > > > It might be handier to not have to specify 2
> > > > > alt-attribute-values but longterm it is bad spec. The only two
> > > > > valid strategies would be the long version inside the picture-element
> or the alt-attribute for the picture-element.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry, I speak for my own but this is a longterm consideration.
> > > >
> > > > <picture> needs a fallback of some sort otherwise users in current
> > > > and older browsers won't see any image at all.
> > > >
> > > > <img> allows authors to specify a fallback image for those users
> > > > who can see the image but don't have a <picture>-capable browser.
> > > >
> > > > For users who simply cannot see images (whether vision impairment
> > > > or unfortunate connection), there still needs to be a text
> > > > fallback somewhere in there. If <img> will be part of <picture>
> > > > and <img> already has rules for @alt, then requiring @alt on
> > > > <picture> just creates more complexity (room for error, mismatches,
> etc). Therefore, just lean on @alt from the <img> that will already be there.
> > > >
> > > > With this method the only complexity above what web developers do
> > > > today is adding the <picture> and its children. And that
> > > > additional complexity will only be there if a developer wants to use this
> new feature.
> > > >
> > > > This only addresses the short text alternative, but I think that's the one
> you are questioning.
> > > >
> > > > Is there a piece I am missing in my (attempted) logic?
Received on Thursday, 6 September 2012 20:56:16 UTC

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