- From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 15:48:29 -0500
- To: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
- Cc: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>, Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>, wai-cg@w3.org
Hi John, > I've stated my preference for using the stronger ERROR, and that, like > Cynthia, I believe that whatever we call <img> without @src should also be > what we call <img> without @alt, because without both, the thing is > broken. It didn't make it into the minutes, but that idea was rejected at last Tuesday's face-to-face. The thing would be broken. The resolution did not say "Modify Laura's change proposal to have the conformance checker normatively emit a warning as opposed to an error for text alternatives AND @src..." > However, if, as Janina suggests, the fastest way to the bigger > win (pointing to WAI Guidance for repair/remediation) is to call it a > warning, then I say go for the bigger win. The resolution also referred to "the conformance checker". HTML5 mandating that ALL validators (not just Henri's) point to WAI Guidance would certainly help educate authors and encourage them in the right direction. Requiring such systems to do so would be a big step in the right direction. However this does not rectify the inequity. Without both @src and a text alternative the <img> element is broken. Making them both a just warning doesn’t make sense. Both are needed for an image to be complete. Both are on the same level. And lowering standards for one and not the other is discrimination. I hope that the task force reconsiders and supports the change proposal [1] which implements WAI-CG's recommendation. Best Regards, Laura -- Laura L. Carlson. [1] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20090126
Received on Saturday, 10 April 2010 20:49:03 UTC