- From: Philip Taylor (Webmaster) <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
- Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 08:22:06 +0100
- To: Dave Singer <singer@apple.com>
- CC: public-html WG <public-html@w3.org>
Dave Singer wrote: > I cannot tell you the number of times I have seen something like > "Frobotz 2" as an optional install, and wondered if I needed it or not, > clicked on it to find out what it was, and been given the explanatory > string "This installs the Frobotz 2 option". Which is useless to me. > > Requiring (this is an example only) a text description of elements may > be counterproductive. Authoring tools or authors might, for example, > insert "this is an image" as the default description of all images. Now > browsers, crawlers, analyzers etc. cannot tell easily whether an element > has a real (useful) text description or not. Indeed, a browser that > tries to "say something useful" about un-described elements now is > "blocked" by these apparent (but useless) descriptions. All good points (said he, as one proud to wear the "I care about accessibility" badge). But if the author of "Frobotz 2" had /not/ written "This installs Frobotz 2", what more useful information might the installer have been able to adduce ? Thus I argue that simply because some authors will be too d@mn lazy to write meaningful ALT attributes, longdesc[riptions], fallback content for containers and so on does not mean that that the formal specification should not require them : rather it means that the part of the specification that addresses authoring tools should state categorically that tools should not insert meaningless boilerplate copy for required content, but rather than the tool should guide the user through the process of creating meaningful content. Similarly that part of the specification addressed to authors should contain useful guidelines on what constitutes, and what does not constitute, meaningful content. Philip Taylor
Received on Wednesday, 1 August 2007 07:22:37 UTC