W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 2004

Re: Layout versus data tables proposal for null summary attribute

From: Kerstin Goldsmith <kerstin.goldsmith@oracle.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 12:34:48 -0700
Message-ID: <412F8CD8.30905@oracle.com>
To: Jesper Tverskov <jesper.tverskov@mail.tele.dk>
CC: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org, "'Michael Cooper'" <michaelc@watchfire.com>, "'Wendy Chisholm'" <wendy@w3.org>

what about something like SUMMARY="layout" and ALT="decor"?  that shows 
intention .....

Jesper Tverskov wrote:

>I know very well that using alt="" in images, meaning "decoration",
>etc., is a long standing convention. I am using it myself and I
>recommend others to use it, but I consider it a bad convention, a
>disservice to accessibility.
>
>Now we are also going to get summary="", title="", accesskey="", you
>name it. It is bad for many reasons. Many tools for making web pages put
>in all sorts of attributes="" by default so web page authors can fill
>them in.
>
>Many web page authors when putting in attributes "by hand", often start
>with title="", summary="", alt="", etc. especially when they are in
>doubt of what value to use right a way, they prefer to put in the
>attribute first and to add the right value later.
>
>
>That is the main reason why putting special meaning to attribute="",
>meaning null, is the worst of all choices we could have made. It is the
>worst choice possible if we want to use the attribute for testing. Most
>often the meaning of attribute="" is not null but that the author has
>forgotten to finish the attribute, the right value is not yet in place.
>
>I am just suggesting putting an end to the above "madness" of thinking
>that attribute="" is great. It is not. We should come up with something
>better, and we should not expect for other specs to accept so bad
>solutions in the long run. They give accessibility a bad name.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Jesper Tverskov
>www.smackthemouse.com
>
>
>  
>
Received on Friday, 27 August 2004 19:36:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 23:39:44 UTC