W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > July 2010

Re: comments on 'private use' section of proposal - Sanity check

From: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 09:29:25 +0200
Message-ID: <AANLkTin-KeNqvDM6i4dQeTQtxAPtUOeZnOhxozmllzR1@mail.gmail.com>
To: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>
Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
hi benjamin,

>The exemption does not change whether or not email clients provide "the
ability  to add a text alternative".

I didn't say that, i said whether the document is considered conforming will
change depending on who i send it to. Which is what the exception states.

But unless the tool allows me to add an alternative text (and this may be a
simple as being able to edit the source html), the only conforming documents
with an image i can produce are those that are meant for people who are
known to be able to view and understand the content of the image.


On 19 July 2010 08:54, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>wrote:

> On 18 Jul 2010, at 14:45, Steven Faulkner wrote:
> > The private email exception does not apply to  apply to a class of
> authoring tools, it only applies if you send a private email to a person or
> people who you know can see the image.
> >
> > So depending on who I send it to, will decide if it is conforming or non
> conforming so unless the email client provides the ability for me to add a
> text alternative it WILL allow non conforming documents to be published.
> The exemption does not change whether or not email clients provide "the
> ability  to add a text alternative". On the contrary, the draft envisages
> clients provide that ability in the very next sentence:
> "However, even in such cases it is strongly recommended that alternative
> text be included (as appropriate according to the kind of image involved, as
> described in the above entries), so that the e-mail is still usable should
> the user use a mail client that does not support images, or should the
> document be forwarded on to other users whose abilities might not include
> easily seeing images."
> http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#an-image-in-an-e-mail-or-private-document-intended-for-a-specific-person-who-is-known-to-be-able-to-view-images
> Also the spec explicitly says "markup generators (such as WYSIWYG authoring
> tools) should, wherever possible, obtain alternative text from their users".
> http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#guidance-for-markup-generators
> I don't think anyone disputes that it is possible for an email client to
> try to obtain alternative text?
> The exemption only affects whether authoring tools can add an image to an
> document without also requiring the user to add a text alternative before
> sending or otherwise sharing it. If it did not exist, then they would have
> generated detectably non-conforming markup and would therefore be
> non-conforming themselves.
> --
> Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis

with regards

Steve Faulkner
Technical Director - TPG Europe
Director - Web Accessibility Tools Consortium

www.paciellogroup.com | www.wat-c.org
Web Accessibility Toolbar -
Received on Monday, 19 July 2010 07:30:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:21 UTC