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

Re: Mandatory and Important

From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 22:41:57 -0500
Message-ID: <1c8dbcaa0808222041g6d954e1dga6f27985dc450e49@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Karl Dubost" <karl@w3.org>
Cc: "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>, "W3C WAI-XTECH" <wai-xtech@w3.org>

Hi Karl,

> I'm using a *private* gallery online that I put on my server. I take a  
> *lot* of photos and don't put alt text on them (because 1. don't need  
> it, 2. I don't have time for it). Does that mean it becomes impossible  
> for me to use the tools/services

No it doesn't. Use the tools/services and let them be nonconforming. From an architectural point of view, the structure of an image isn't complete without alternate text so for that reason alone it shouldn't conform.

Omit the src attribute and sighted users have no content.
Omit the alternate text and users with disabilities have no content.

src is to sighted users
alt is to some users with disabilities

Like Gez wrote [1]:

> If you do bulk uploads on Flickr intended for your friends and loved
> ones, it's reasonable that you might decide to add text alternatives
> later, or maybe never get around to adding them. But do you think the
> resulting content should be considered compliant? Without text
> alternatives, the content will not be perceivable for some people. It
> seems reasonable to me that appropriate alternative text is required
> for conformance. Lowering conformance requirements seems a dangerous
> route, as not only does that lock out people that cannot readily
> change an aspect about themselves to be able to perceive the content,
> but it's also a route that is open to abuse.
> Why is it so important that inaccessible content should be considered
> compliant? Why not allow these edge cases to be considered
> non-compliant, and have authoring tools encourage authors to author
> accessible content? If an author chooses not to provide text
> alternatives because they're writing for themselves, close friends and
> relatives, that's fine; but lowering conformance requirements in order
> to declare a structure that is incomplete as compliant doesn't seem
> reasonable.

Best Regards,

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/wai-xtech/2008Aug/0095.html

Laura L. Carlson
Received on Saturday, 23 August 2008 03:42:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:51:37 UTC