W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-admin@w3.org > August 2013

[Bug 22855] New: Would it make sense to say that not having alt violates WCAG?

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2013 17:01:48 +0000
To: public-html-admin@w3.org
Message-ID: <bug-22855-2495@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22855

            Bug ID: 22855
           Summary: Would it make sense to say that not having alt
                    violates WCAG?
    Classification: Unclassified
           Product: HTML WG
           Version: unspecified
          Hardware: PC
                OS: Windows NT
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: HTML5 spec
          Assignee: dave.null@w3.org
          Reporter: david100@sympatico.ca
        QA Contact: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
                CC: mike@w3.org, public-html-admin@w3.org,
                    public-html-wg-issue-tracking@w3.org

"4.8.1.1.14 When a text alternative is not available at the time of
publication"

Uneasy about the harm reduction technique of  providing the file name instead
of alt "when alt is not available"... Most AT speaks file name anyway.

Perhaps consider stronger language discouraging it, and make it clear that it
violates WCAG.

For sighted folks ALT is almost always available, although it may be imprecise
or in the case of a web master, because he may not know the "equivalent
purpose" since he does not know the intended purpose of the author...

I'm concerned about the perception that it is not a big deal that alt is
missing.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Thursday, 1 August 2013 17:01:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:57:24 UTC