- From: Robert J Burns <rob@robburns.com>
- Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 14:15:32 +0300
- To: Dave Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Hi Dave, On Aug 22, 2008, at 2:05 PM, Dave Singer wrote: >> Hi Dave, >> >> I think it is not a difficult issue. HTML5 can simply say: >> * the IMG element MUST include an alt attribute >> * authors MUST include suitable alt text for each image embedded >> with the IMG element >> * authors SHOULD follow WCAG guidelines in composing suitable alt >> text >> * authoring tools SHOULD follow ATAG in assisting authors providing >> suitable alt text and MAY automatically generate default alt text >> in cases where it is possible (e.g., the replacement of an image of >> richly styled text by plain text) >> * authoring tools MUST NOT add any text that is a placeholder for >> alt text (e.g., "this is an image") >> >> I don't see the problem then. We have provided suitable guidance to >> authoring tools and authors. > > As provided, the guidance is fine. But thisdoesn't seem to address > the question that was central to starting the debate: what to do > when alt text is not available at the time of HTML generation? My > perception is that quite a few people believe or hope that this > situation doesn't arise, but it does, and it's currently 'polluting' > the web; your second bullet is not always achievable. I'm unclear > as to what you believe should happen in this case; I assume you're > as unhappy as I am with alt="", missing alt, or alt="useless filler > text". I really don't see that as a central question for this WG (other than how it is addressed it what I just wrote). From what I just wrote the answer is, If the suitable alt text is unavailable the authoring tool should make sure the alt attribute is alt=''. Similarly, the authoring tool (in the case of Flickr) might add role='photo'. The dilemma is solved (at least as far as we HTML5 spec writers are concerned). >> The alt attribute is always required (though sometimes has a null >> value). Authors and authoring tools know their requirements and >> recommendations and know which authorities to reference for more >> details. >> >> As for the curly braces syntax that need is addressed better by the >> use of the role attribute and Gregory's recent proposal to use role >> keywords to convey the various roles of embedded media[1]. Using >> role instead of the curly braces allows localization to occur >> through the UA (rather than resorting to HTTP content negotiation >> or another mechanism cumbersome to author). It also allows the >> conventions among authors, authoring tools, users and assistive >> technology to be well defined (which using arbitrary curly braced >> content does not). > > The role attribute is a possibility, and I see what you are saying > also. One of the reasons I thought that the keywords in {} should > ideally come from a well-defined set was to allow > internationalization or interpretation by UAs, and not just display. Agreed. Incidentally, I meant to reply to continue the discussion on list, so I hope I'm not out of line adding the WG back to the to header. Take care, Rob
Received on Friday, 22 August 2008 11:16:49 UTC