- From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 11:13:19 +0900
- To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Le 19 août 2008 à 22:03, Henri Sivonen a écrit :
> On Aug 19, 2008, at 15:24, Karl Dubost wrote:
>
>> My proposal is something along:
>>
>> All img elements must have the alt content attribute set.
>> The accessibility requirements on the possible values of
>> the alt attributes are defined by WCAG 2.0 and not HTML 5.
>
>
> When the markup generator has an image of unknown (to the generator)
> content for which the generator does not have user-entered textual
> alternative, what should the markup generator emit as the value of
> the alt attribute according to your reading of WCAG 2.0?
Maybe two possible scenarios:
1. The generator creates the markup with an empty alt attribute.
Rationale: any kind of automatic machine value attribution will be
unsastifying.
1.a (Optional) the markup generator generates a report about
possible image issues.
2. The generator creates no markup for alt attribute and leave it to
the user to fix it later on.
note 1: case 2 will be an issue with already deployed softwares. Some
software are creating already automatic values, for example, textmate
creates something from the filename. "2059-beach-hotel.jpg" becomes
alt="2059 beach hotel".
note 2: As a functional requirement for authoring tools, web services
with editing capabilities, giving the possibility to edit the
alt="attribute". Flickr do editing with Ajax, one field could be
perfectly proposed for alt or less confusing. A generic part of the
description text, more an implementation strategy. Note also that
Flickr for example imports automatically XMP RDF for images (including
the description, the keywords, etc.).
--
Karl Dubost - W3C
http://www.w3.org/QA/
Be Strict To Be Cool
Received on Wednesday, 20 August 2008 02:13:56 UTC