Re: Need differentiator between "no alt text provided" and "no alt text necessary"

On Feb 2, 2009, at 3:15 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:

> On Mon, 2 Feb 2009, James Craig wrote:
>>
>> I meant to add a potential solution as to the wording. The current  
>> wording is:
>>
>> If the src attribute is set and the alt attribute is not
>> The image might be a key part of the content, and there is no textual
>> equivalent of the image available.
>>
>> Source: http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#the-img-element
>>
>> I believe this wording would be more clear.
>>
>> If the src attribute is set and the alt attribute is not
>> The image is assumed to be a key part of the content, and there is  
>> no textual
>> equivalent of the image available.
>
> "is assumed" is descriptive phraseology. Whom is it assumed by? Why?

Assumed by:

1. User agents, in order to give an appropriate experience to users.
2. Search engines, in order to index appropriate content.

> I used "might be" because this is a sentence giving a definition.  
> It's not
> absolute ("is") because there are error cases to handle as well.

Then there is not a clear differentiation between "no alt text  
provided" and "no alt text necessary." The point of my thread is that  
there needs to be.

Received on Monday, 2 February 2009 23:26:13 UTC