- From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 04:21:17 -0500
- To: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>
- Cc: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Hi Benjamin, > At any rate, there's a direct conflict between requiring conforming HTML > documents to include text alternatives *and* requiring authoring tools to > generate conforming documents, so long as we accept tools will (should?) > insert new images into documents, then publish those documents even when > they are missing text alternatives. They are both good principles, but one > of them has to bend. That is a key observation. Thank you for stating it. The spec states "Authoring tools and markup generators must generate conforming documents" [1]. However, it grants an exception to the address element because "authoring tools are not yet able to determine author intent". As in the case of an authoring tool not knowing author intent for an address element, it cannot know author intent in the case of text alternatives. Gez Lemon has stated the situation clearly, "When an authoring tool doesn't have anything useful to put in for the alt text, the tool shouldn't put anything in. A good authoring tool will check for missing alt text and offer to assist the user in repairing the content. If an author is adamant they're not going to provide alt text, there is no requirement that says the authoring tool should provide it in place of the author. In fact, it's just the opposite, as the authoring tool could not possibly know the author's intent. In this scenario, the authoring tool should not include the alt attribute at all, and the resulting markup should be considered invalid. It should be considered invalid because it is inaccessible, and not perceivable by some people. If the tool allows alt text to be provided, then the tool would be considered compliant (on this particular issue), even though the resulting markup would not be compliant, as the user chose not to make the content compliant." [2] If any generated or missing mechanism is included in HTML5, it should only be included at the element level where it could be dealt with on an image-by-image case with a detection method such as a generated or missing attribute, (as WAI CG said that they wouldn't object to). rather than at the document level. A missing attribute has some advantages [3]. The generator mechanism as specified is actively harmful to accessibility. Best Regards, Laura [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-html5-20100624/infrastructure.html#editors [2] http://juicystudio.com/article/html5-alt-text-authoring-tools.php [3] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20090126#missing -- Laura L. Carlson
Received on Monday, 19 July 2010 09:21:48 UTC