W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > August 2007

RE: User Testing of Accessiblity Features

From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 01:34:50 +0200
Message-ID: <<404331ad75175941f28d6653309b55ae@10013.local>>
To: "Alastair Campbell" <ac@nomensa.com>
Cc: "Debi Orton" <oradnio@wsg.net>, "Andrew Kirkpatrick" <akirkpat@adobe.com>, "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>, "WAI Interest Group list" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>, "www-archive" <www-archive@w3.org>

2007-08-28 17:20:49 +0100 "Alastair Campbell" <ac@nomensa.com>:

>> We proposed an additional attribute (two values only) for
>> the img element to indicate whether the image was informational or
>> just eye candy.
> 
> Surely that would be a null alt? ATs can then decide how they deal with
> images that have null alts, which is often by ignoring them currently.

So you think we can add semantic meaning by saying that if there is no ALT, then the image is "key content" = more important.

We then get this semantic hierarchy:

+1 = noalt (the highest value)
 0 = alt="text" (neutral)
-1 = alt="" lowest value

The first audience for a this would be the authors. And we would not get it. Because the lowest value and the highest value would to us look almost the same. For us, this would require first of all a decision «do I need ALT at all?»  Then, who would press that button just in order to add an empty alt=""? Who would answer yes, just to type alt=""?

This would lead to a dramatic increase of IMG as «key content» (i.e. zero-alt). This said, I don't feel convinced that an extra attribute is what we need - that would just be one more decision to make, and more things that could go wrong.
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Thursday, 30 August 2007 23:35:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:18:08 GMT