- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 07:44:52 -0700
- To: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Cc: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>, Sean Hayes <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com>, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>, Matt Morgan-May <mattmay@adobe.com>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, "Gregory J. Rosmaita" <oedipus@hicom.net>
On Apr 29, 2010, at 4:18 AM, Laura Carlson wrote: > Hi John and everyone, > >> I'm having a very hard time with this myself. How, fundamentally, is >> crowd-sourcing and mining of obtuse metadata going to accurately >> supply >> appropriate text alternatives to an image. > > I wonder if it would make sense for the @missing (or > @alt-not-asserted, or something of that nature) to have a value that > could suck in the repair (whatever that ends up being > crowdsourced/metadata/etc. ) If such an attribute is added, I suggest giving it a brief name, e.g. 'noalt'. 'noalt' has the advantage that it is fewer than 'alt=""', unlike the other options. Thus there will be less incentive to silence the validator with incorrect information just to save a few bytes. I also think that vague names like "missing" or "incomplete" are likely to confuse authors (they sound like they're saying the resource pointed to by src is missing or incomplete). I also do not think it is necessary to provide for the case of alt present but src missing. If a markup generator has some text but not an equivalent image, then the correct markup to emit is just the text, not an <img> tag with alt but no src. So despite the appealing symmetry, I don't think this provides for any real use cases, it just makes the rules harder to explain. Regards, Maciej
Received on Thursday, 29 April 2010 14:45:30 UTC