- From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
- Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 16:57:55 +0200
- To: HTML4All <list@html4all.org>
- CC: Al Gilman <Alfred.S.Gilman@IEEE.org>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Henri Sivonen 08-04-14 15.08: > On Apr 14, 2008, at 15:07, Al Gilman wrote: > ... > Putting junk > there is information loss compared to signaling the unavailability. > Information loss is bad, because then UAs have less information to > work with in order to function to the benefit of users. It is not only about loosing or gaining information, but also about usability. (If it ain't usable, then you can't use the possibly rich(er) information ...) The draft as it stands does not have any advices especially directed towards CMS-es and image sites etc. If we could move to discussing the right advices to give about how CMS-es should act, then I think it would be a step forward in the debate - and the spec. I would assume that if we actually gave ourselves that task, then we would easily be able to agree about at last *few cases where* an alt would be better than no alt. And thenafter, we could see wht to do with the rest. > > Not changes from the HTML5 baseline, but changes from the testable > > assertions that accessibility checkers as implemented now are coded > > to check. That's what needs to bear the burden of proof. > > HTML 5 is not normative over products that purport to check documents > for accessibility. Those products may check for assertions that aren't > part of the syntax constraints of HTML5. (However, if those tools are > used for mere badge hunting, they will induce bogus alt, too.) > "Look, no alt, but still valid" can also be a form of badge hunting. -- leif halvard silli
Received on Monday, 14 April 2008 14:58:45 UTC