- From: Robert J Burns <rob@robburns.com>
- Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 18:45:11 +0300
- To: Dave Singer <singer@apple.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Hi Dave, On Aug 22, 2008, at 4:37 PM, Dave Singer wrote: > > At 14:15 +0300 22/08/08, Robert J Burns wrote: >> 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). > > But now we're back where we started. We want UAs to be able to > interpret alt="" as meaning images that are decorative etc., not > needing AT. This is conflating cases, again. >> No, we're not back to where we started. The role keywords distinguish the role of the media rather than relying on a null attribute, missing attributes or curly braces. So <img role='decor' alt='' > is a decorative image, while <img role='photo' alt='' > is a photograph with a missing alt value. Take care, Rob
Received on Friday, 22 August 2008 15:46:11 UTC