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

Re: [html4all] some reflections on @alt usage

From: Gez Lemon <gez.lemon@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 14:37:01 +0100
Message-ID: <e2a28a920804280637kfee8b8esae043e93b97979ae@mail.gmail.com>
To: HTML4All <list@html4all.org>
Cc: "W3C WAI-XTECH" <wai-xtech@w3.org>

On 28/04/2008, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com> wrote:
>  Optional alt is about a belief that validation is more important to people
>  (in particular tool developers) than accessibility. If that turns out to
>  be true, then it makes sense. If that turns out to be false, then it
>  doesn't. But we have to have some research - both sides of the argument
>  are currently based on gut feeling and instinct. There is a real issue
>  here, and there is very little real information being provided to settle
>  the question rationally.

I think the issue should be about the integrity of the structure. If
alternate text isn't provided for important images, then we know it
isn't accessible to people who cannot readily change an aspect of
themselves to make it accessible. Alternate text maintains the
integrity of the structure to ensure that it is accessible to
everyone.

Lowering the integrity requirements to make poor authoring tools
compliant doesn't address the issue that important images without
alternate text are inaccessible. Badly written alt text being a
greater evil is misdirection. They're both extremely bad scenarios for
accessibility. The markup language should ensure the integrity of the
data.

Cheers,

Gez

-- 
_____________________________
Supplement your vitamins
http://juicystudio.com
Received on Monday, 28 April 2008 13:37:38 UTC

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