Re: New issue: IMG section of HTML5 draft contradicts WCAG 1 & WCAG 2 (draft)

Hi Lachlan,
My point is that making the alt optional does not solve any problems.

As the only  reliable way to have a meaningful text alternative
provided is for the author to provide it.

So all that is achieved is the removal of the blunt message that is
provided to authors by the the requirement of the alt attribute. i.e.
if you don't have alt attributes on images in your document: it is not
valid, is it's replacement by an equally blunt message: if you don't
have alt attributes on images in your document: it is valid.

I would prefer to be brodcasting the first message rather than the
second as the use of the alt atttibute is the primary mechanism by
which text alternatives are provided.

Without alt, one can be sure that the image is not accessible, With
alt present there is at least half a chance that image is accessible.



regards
steve

On 11/04/2008, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au> wrote:
> Steven Faulkner wrote:
> > Two images without explicitly associated text alternatives.
> > 1 is an image is decorative that the author has accidently left off
> > the alt, the other is "critical content" that the author could not
> > provide an alt for whatever reason
> > 1 can be safely ignored, the other should be brought to the attention
> > of the user.
> >
> > <img src="abc.jpg">
> >
> > <img src="xyz.jpg">
> >
> > How is Assistive Technology  supposed to reliably determine this?
> >
>
> I'm not sure what your point is here. The same question can be applied when
> both have empty alt attributes:
>
>
> <img src="abc.jpg" alt="">
>
> <img src="xyz.jpg" alt="">
>
> --
> Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software
> http://lachy.id.au/
> http://www.opera.com/
>


-- 
with regards

Steve Faulkner
Technical Director - TPG Europe
Director - Web Accessibility Tools Consortium

www.paciellogroup.com | www.wat-c.org
Web Accessibility Toolbar -
http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html

Received on Friday, 11 April 2008 14:24:48 UTC