W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > wai-xtech@w3.org > April 2008

Is this an accurate reflection of where we stand today? (was RE: New issue: IMG section of HTML5 draft contradicts WCAG 1 & WCAG 2 (draft))

From: John Foliot <foliot@wats.ca>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 14:08:15 -0700
To: "'Ian Hickson'" <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: "'Dan Connolly'" <connolly@w3.org>, "'HTML WG'" <public-html@w3.org>, "'Michael\(tm\) Smith'" <mike@w3.org>, <wai-xtech@w3.org>, "'public html for all'" <list@html4all.org>, "'Al Gilman'" <Alfred.S.Gilman@ieee.org>
Message-ID: <009501c8a006$01f72080$b83c42ab@stanford.edu>

Ian Hickson wrote:
> If I haven't replied to an e-mail sent prior to this e-mail:
>     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Apr/0220.html
> Please let me know. I thought I had dealt with all feedback prior to
> that point.

I believe that Charles McCathieNevile reopened ISSUE-31 "Should img without
alt ever be conforming" late last week, in part due to
procedural/administrative issues. (Action item #54 still being open)

> Regarding:
>    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Feb/0082.html
> ...I did carefully read this message the spec has changed to take into
> account that feedback. However, that e-mail was rather vague and it
> wasn't at all clear to me exactly what was desired. 

Non-vague conclusion follows:

"Conclusion:  barring the introduction of new, good
reasons for a change, the failure of the HTML5 draft to make
@alt on <img> an across-the-board requirement (even if sometimes
it has the value of &quot;&quot;) is a bug."

I guess we are awaiting *NEW*, *GOOD* reasons for change beyond skepticism
and opinion.  If this qualitative information has emerged, please be kind
enough to point us to it.

Furthermore, the response also stated:

"The language "In such cases, the alt attribute may be omitted," gives the
appearance of creating a policy line that is inconsistent with WCAG, whether
1.0 or 2.0. As such, this needs to be changed."

Yet the current draft reads:
"This could be the case, for instance, on a photo upload site, if the site
has received 8000 photos from a user without the user annotating any of
them. In such cases, the alt attribute may be omitted, but the alt attribute
should be included, with a useful value, if at all possible."

(I do not see the recommended change implemented, although note the change
from 3,000 to 8,000 photos)

> If there is some more concrete feedback that I should deal with, I
> would encourage you to send it.

I believe that Laura Carlson, Steven Faulkner, et.al., as members of the
HTML WG, have requested further feedback from 2 other W3C working groups.

Received on Wednesday, 16 April 2008 21:09:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:51:35 UTC