- From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:10:17 +0200
- To: "Andrew Sidwell" <takkaria@gmail.com>, public-html@w3.org
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 04:05:23 +0200, Andrew Sidwell <takkaria@gmail.com> wrote: > It occurred to me earlier there there there might be a non-sighted > person who enjoys taking photos. Maybe so other people can look at > them. Maybe so that edge-detection can be run on the images so they can > be etched and thus felt rather than just seen. http://my.opera.com/oedipus/blog/my-fifteen-minutes-of-fame and http://my.opera.com/oedipus/blog/an-experiment-in-alt are entries about http://my.opera.com/oedipus/albums/ - exactly the situation you are imagining. Although single data points are open to misinterpretation, it might be worth looking at the real thing if the alternative is a thought experiment. > Imagine these photographs were uploaded to the Web. The artist is in no > position to provide alt text. Neither is whatever CMS the artist is > using. However, the content is clearly critical content. There are several possibilities here. In some cases, an alt that provided a key such as the filename so the artist knew which is which would actually be helpful - for instance in a apge full of images. On the single image pages, however, that would not be terribly helpful. However, I agree with the fundamental point that making up some kind of appropriate value for an alt attribute may not be possible even with goodwill. I think that is a secondary case to the fact that we know a large number of images will lack an alt attribute for worse reasons, like people havng second-rate tools, or being lazy, or cutting corners in a rush, or whatever. > Requiring alt in this case seems like lunacy. This is ISSUE-31 and the question hinges on what you mean by "requiring". Making a validator say "this page is invalid" is not the same as forcing someone to put the attribute in. The real question is what will happen on the web, if the validator says that - what will people who make CMS and other authoring tools of various kinds actually do? And that is the crux of this issue. The critical question is whether making a lack of alt attribute invalid will lead to people making systems insert some default in order to pretend that they are outputting valid code (thus defeating the purpose of the attribute and its current interpretation in deployed systems), or whether people are often not concerned about validity, so the major effect will be to educate those who are on the problem that they have created and thus help them improve the Web. In any event, it seems that the HTML 5 spec should clarify that not having an alt attribute is *some* kind of error. It should also clarify, perhaps by reference to the W3C recommendation ATAG 1.0, checkpoint 3.4 [1], that is would be a *worse* error to put in a random default attribute. With respect to my good mate John Foliot who disagrees with me, having "there is no alt attribute" be an indicator that there is a problem is superior to having a defined default value, if only because it already works with today's deployed tools, guidance, and so forth. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG10/atag10.html#check-no-default-alt cheers Chaals (the following are several thoughts that are related, but stretch the topic) I believe that there are other issues based around specific examples given in the last draft of the spec I read that I think are wrong in terms of what they say about when and how to use alt, but that is not the current issue - and overall there has been a big improvement in what the spec says on this topic. I am going to reassign the product of this issue to the specification draft, rather than to no product at all. The question of what is valid is pretty clearly one for the spec itself. The lack of longdesc in the current HTML 5 draft restricts the options a bit, since it forces all description to be on the one page. This is not always ideal, but if thae situation continues and people take it seriously it will lead to hidden text, including using tricks like display:none and hoping or believing or wishing, incorrectly, that screen readers will somehow still see the text. (That's ISSUE-30) -- Charles McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera 9.5: http://snapshot.opera.com
Received on Wednesday, 16 April 2008 09:11:00 UTC