- From: Jim Jewett <jimjjewett@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 21:43:37 -0400
- To: ian@hixie.ch
- Cc: david.dailey@sru.edu, "John Foliot" <foliot@wats.ca>, HTML4All <list@html4all.org>, "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, wai-xtech@w3.org, "Al Gilman" <Alfred.S.Gilman@ieee.org>
Ian Hixie wrote: > Sites that _do_ care about conformance > have these options: > A. Mark the image as decorative. > B. Mark the image as being equivalent to some > arbitrary text ... > C. Mark the image as being equivalent to some > text that already appears ... GPS location, > timestamp, camera model, etc. > D. Mark the image as being > critical-but-of-unknown-content. > Options A-C all result in a worse accessibility > situation. D is not possible in HTML4, and is > the option we want to provide in HTML5 We agree that we're looking for a least-of-evils solution, but we do not agree on which option is the least bad. You obviously prefer D. Several posters prefer "E: Do not support this use case", beecause it is rare (but a frequently used excuse). Other posters (and apparently the WCAG) prefer C. They agree it isn't desirable, but they feel it is still better than D. Even assuming that D is the correct choice: > I'm aware of three syntax proposals for D > (omitting alt to indicate this case, > introducing a new attribute value to indicate > this case, and introducing a new attribute > to indicate this case) and one conformance > definition proposal for handling D. And they all have problems; the decision between them isn't a clear technical decision. You prefer omitting alt. Given the legacy content that I have viewed, I see that as a sloppy equivalent to case A -- effectively declaring the image decorative. The arguments against new attribute values are largely by analogy -- and not everyone agrees on which analogies are strongest. The argument against a conformance definition is that toolmakers will still cheat to be "valid" -- but that isn't proven yet either. If we call it "unready", you're probably right. I don't think they would subvert a state called "Author Must Enter Alt text -- otherwise valid". (Maybe I'm just not cynical enough, but ... you haven't provided evidence for that strong of a claim.) -jJ
Received on Thursday, 17 April 2008 01:44:17 UTC