- From: Michael[tm] Smith <mike@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 00:03:07 +0900
- To: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>
Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, 2012-08-04 14:55 -0500: > [...] > So let's brainstorm here. From the start can we address both groups > and their tasks as equally as possible while fulfilling end-user > requirements? How about the possibility of the vaildator having two > separate yet side-by-side options based on the audience? A simple > user interface mockup is at: > http://www.d.umn.edu/~lcarlson/research/206/byaudience.html > > The idea would be to have an audience section at the beginning of the > page. If the "Generator Developers" radio button is selected the new > attribute would kick in and allow the page to pass validation. And if > the "Authors" radio button is selected it wouldn't. Check out the > mockup and and let me know what you think. This is an interesting idea but I think it does not address the scenario Henri has outlined. That scenario does not involve the generator developers using the validator directly themselves. Instead the users of their tools check the generated content using the validator, and find that it's not valid because of missing alt attributes. And then the possibly complain about that somewhere as a deficiency in that generator, or do something else that causes the generator behavior to work around the problem by having their generator just output alt="" or alt="image" or something for images that should have meaningful alt text. --Mike -- Michael[tm] Smith http://people.w3.org/mike
Received on Tuesday, 7 August 2012 15:03:16 UTC