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

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

From: Sean Hayes <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 16:55:24 +0000
To: Matt May <mattmay@adobe.com>, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
CC: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Message-ID: <8DEFC0D8B72E054E97DC307774FE4B911A4FA658@DB3EX14MBXC303.europe.corp.microsoft.com>
I can see that there are a lot of images that wouldn't have a reasonable alt in isolation, but as Chaals said in the f2f, there must be a contextual reason they are being included in a web page (otherwise why include it), that reason presumably then lends itself to being an alt text.

From: public-html-a11y-request@w3.org [mailto:public-html-a11y-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Matt May
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 4:47 PM
To: Laura Carlson
Cc: HTML Accessibility Task Force; David Singer
Subject: Re: missing attribute/crowdsourcing (was Re: Discussion: Text Alternative Survey)

I think what's on the wiki is as much detail as needs to be provided. I can't add anything to the discussion until someone explains why it was removed. If the answer is that authors are expected to provide @alt or an equivalent or else it's not valid, I guess that's one way to solve it, but I don't think that will be seen in a positive light by the broader WG. More than one person (including the editor) has complained that they can generate images for which they cannot also reliably generate @alt, and I expect that they will want that to be recognized as a common scenario.


On Apr 27, 2010, at 3:29 AM, Laura Carlson wrote:

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.
Received on Tuesday, 27 April 2010 16:56:34 UTC

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