Re: Flickr and alt

Smylers wrote:

> Gez Lemon writes:
>
> > Without alt text, images won't be perceivable to some people. If an
> > author decides not to provide alt text for whatever reason, that's
> > fair enough,
>
> Why?  In circumstances where the author could have provided good alt
> text but is merely feeling lazy or ignorant or similar then I'd say
> that isn't "fair enough".

I don't speak Dutch. There are a multitude of Dutch-language sites out there,
written by bilingual folks, who could have made available an English version,
but due to inconvenience or laziness did not. Fair enough, or not?

Now, admittedly, I could learn Dutch. It's a bit of a stretch to say that as
a non-Dutch speaker, I am equivalent to a blind person. I could also learn
Italian, & Arabic, & Russian, & Japanese, & Afrikaans, & Spanish, but at this
point it's becoming laughable: it's not such a stretch anymore.

Does my right to read what those Dutch folk published trump their right to do
what they want with their own time & not translate it into my language, which
happens to be the most widely-spoken & -understood on the globe?

I would posit that a blind person's right to browse photos is akin to my
right to wander the Netherlands: they are not entitled to a text translation
of all visuals, just as I am not entitled to an English translation on every
sign & page. Now Flickr is more like Amsterdam: you would indeed expect
English signage, at least for the main part.

It's an exception, though; if I chuck a photo in any old webpage, {photo} is
the best alt you can get all gung-ho about *demanding*. Request & campaign
for more, but to mandate flowing prose will gain you nothing but rampant
non-conformance. Leave that to WCAG, HTML has a different focus.

Received on Thursday, 21 August 2008 02:16:08 UTC