Re: missing attribute/crowdsourcing (was Re: Discussion: Text Alternative Survey) from Laura Carlson on 2010-04-27 (public-html-a11y@w3.org from April 2010)

From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 12:30:57 -0500
To: Sean Hayes <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com>, Matt May <mattmay@adobe.com>
Cc: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-ID: <y2s1c8dbcaa1004271030m803951c5oa056dc3dfe449925@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Sean,

> 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.

Matt,  isn't that the reason for the canonical URI for the document
and an ID for the image and the rel attribute for the <link> to the
mechanism for associating the alt attribute? If the crowdsourcing
thing is to work, a number of pieces need to be speced.
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/User:Lcarlson/ImgElement#Crowdsourcing
Did I get this right?

Best Regards,
Laura

-- 
Laura L. Carlson

Received on Tuesday, 27 April 2010 17:31:30 UTC