W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > April 2010

missing attribute/crowdsourcing (was Re: Discussion: Text Alternative Survey)

From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 03:29:15 -0500
Message-ID: <s2z1c8dbcaa1004270129k2d634f3ai836febe5e502ce06@mail.gmail.com>
To: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, Matt Morgan-May <mattmay@adobe.com>
Cc: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Hello Everyone,

On the text alternative survey [1] Dave Singer voted no and said:

> Serious issue: Whether or not we say that authoring tools must
> generate conforming documents, anyone writing a tool would normally
> wish to and expect to, and may well be instructed to by their
> management. Being silent on the subject, as the replacement text is,
> will simply encourage the behavior of putting in 'nonce' values (e.g.
> alt="" or alt="<file-name>").

On this list I told him that:

* WAI-CG had said that they wouldn't oppose a generated or missing attribute.
* I had previously included  Jan's idea for a generated attribute and
Matt's idea for a missing attribute in the proposal.
* Ian has rejected the generated attribute in a bug.
* The people at the face-to-face asked me to remove the missing
attribute/crowdsourcing option. I did.

Dave asked why the missing attribute was sliced. I said I don't know.

A "missing" attribute could provide a machine checkable mechanism to
locate missing alt/enable tools to quickly discern where it has been
used. It could allow for future improvement perhaps via crowdsourcing.
The crowdsourcing possibility may actually help make things better. It
might help with one of the biggest problems we deal with around
images: that we can see something is wrong with someone else's
content, but can't do anything about it.

None who attended the face-to-face has answered the question of why
they wanted the missing attribute out of the proposal.

Can anyone not live with the missing attribute/crowdsourcing option
going back into the proposal?

What I had was similar to:

Matt could you please explain more about the idea. If "missing" is to
go back in, we should have more details regarding it.


Kindest Regards,

[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/44061/20040422_text-alt/results

Related email:

Laura L. Carlson
Received on Tuesday, 27 April 2010 08:29:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:55:35 UTC