- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 21:40:17 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: > > Section 4.8.2.1.11 "An image in an e-mail or document intended for a specific > person who is known to be able to view images" seems to me mildly harmful. > Specifically, it appears to legitimate claims of the kind "all our customers > can see, so we don't need to worry", something that causes a huge umber of > problems in ensuring accessibility where it is in fact necessary. > > An example given a decade ago was about a driving school [...] I've changed that section to make it clear it is only referring to private documents and not anything on the Web. > 4.8.2.1.13 Guidance for markup generators also seems problematic. Its > suggestion that tools might simply assume that things are decorative and > use alt="" flies in the face of both ATAG 1 [2] and the current draft of > ATAG 2 [3], both documents designed specifically to address this issue > for the relevant audience. The section's treatment of what to do when an > image represents a link is, IMHO, an over-simplification of the guidance > in ATAG that is also in conflict for some cases with what that > specification actually says. > > If the former section were removed, and the latter section rewritten to > follow what ATAG says (and even better, refer to it directly), then I > believe the current draft and those modifications would resolve > ISSUE-30. (Whereas the current draft and some other set of odifications > may or may not, IMHO). Could you be more specific about what the contradictions are? > A more minor quibble that I think is editorial is with "don't do this" > example of bad practice given in Section 4.8.2.1.2 A phrase or paragraph > with an alternative graphical representation: charts, diagrams, graphs, > maps, illustrations" - rather than using the current text, I would > suggest something like "Photo of white house with boarded door" - and > perhaps a note that such text *would* be reasonable as a title *in > addition* to the suggested alt. I've added your text as another example. > Likewise I have editorial quibbles with the allegedly bad example in Section > 4.8.2.1.9 "A key part of the content" where it suggests that "The first of ten > cards in the Rorshach test" is bad alt text. Assuming some resolution to > ISSUE-30 allows for a reference to a further description that is not included > in the main flow of text, and a page whose assumed audience is people who know > what the Rorshach test is, or describes it, the specifics of the picture is > not necessarily relevant and the example *may* be perfectly reasonable. As > demonstrated by the fact that I can have a meaningful discussion about it by > email, even though I have no idea what it actually looks like because I didn't > properly read the description included in the proposed good example. The spec has apparently changed since your comment (it no longer matches your description); the "bad" example now just points out that repetition is bad. > There are some other examples given in this section of the draft, such > as descriptions of complex images, where the ability to refer to a > standalone resource as a description of a complex image would facilitate > re-use of the image across different pages for users and authors, and > would facilitate recognition of the image for both authoring tools and > assistive technologies. Indeed. For optimal usability by all users, not just those who do not have access to images, such descriptions can be provided using the <a> element. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Saturday, 25 April 2009 21:40:53 UTC