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

Re: ISSUE-66 Change Proposal: be more explicit about potential repair techniques

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 15:43:41 -0800
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <5D88E898-9F37-43C0-8D13-110E9B649D36@apple.com>
To: Matt May <mattmay@adobe.com>

Ian, are you willing to make the revision Matt suggests?

Matt, thanks for being flexible about the range of solutions.

Regards,
Maciej

On Mar 9, 2010, at 2:52 PM, Matt May wrote:

> I'm willing to accept this change proposal. It covers what can be done
> to images in greater detail, without making it sound like good-enough
> repair for missing alt.
>
> One issue I have, though, is that many of the features mentioned are
> more likely to be cloud services than they are to be embedded in a
> browser. If the CP can make it clearer that these could be either
> native features of the browser, links to services running in the
> cloud, or assistive technologies that extend the browsing experience,
> I would fully support this proposal and withdraw my own.
>
> -
> m
>
> On Mar 9, 2010, at 4:46 AM, "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
>
>>
>> SUMMARY
>>
>> The spec is very vague about what image analysis techniques could be
>> applied to images. This change proposal suggests including more  
>> detail
>> about possible techniques.
>>
>>
>> RATIONALE
>>
>> Currently the <img> element section mentions that UAs "may also apply
>> heuristics to help the user make use of the image when the user is
>> unable
>> to see it", but the only suggested heuristic is OCR.
>>
>> In practice, there are a host of other heuristics that could help a
>> user
>> make sense of an image, and they might be useful even to users who
>> _can_
>> see the image. We do all users a disservice by not being more  
>> explicit
>> here. Being explicit could encourage significant competition amongst
>> user
>> agents, leading to a much better user experience for everyone.
>>
>> Since these heuristics are in many cases already implemented and
>> shipping,
>> sometimes in multiple products from multiple vendors, and since  
>> recent
>> advances in image recognition techniques have been fast and furious,
>> it
>> seems reasonable to mention these techniques as real possibilities.
>>
>>
>> DETAILS
>>
>> Strike "when the user is unable to see it". Instead, start a new
>> sentence
>> before the "e.g", which says "This would be especially useful to
>> users who
>> cannot see the image", and add the following after the "e.g."
>> clauses, in
>> a separate clause: "but it could also be useful to users who _can_
>> see the
>> image, but might not fully understand or recognise it".
>>
>> Move "optical character recognition (OCR) of text found within the
>> image"
>> to be the first bullet of a bulleted list, and add the following
>> additional points:
>>
>>  * Facial recognition in photographs, especially facial recognition
>> of
>>    notable individuals or of individuals in the user's social
>> network.
>>
>>  * Product or brand recognition in photographs or logos.
>>
>>  * Barcode recognition of any embedded barcodes.
>>
>>  * Bitmap to vector analysis for diagrams, allowing images to be
>>    further analysed in specialised tools.
>>
>>  * Data extraction for graphs, allowing data to be reconstructed from
>>    bar charts, pie charts, and the like, or allowing regression lines
>>    to be fitted to x,y plots.
>>
>>  * Landmark recognition for photographs.
>>
>>  * 3D reconstruction of scenes based on multiple images, allowing a
>> set
>>    of images to be taken together and explored in context.
>>
>>
>> IMPACT
>>
>> POSITIVE EFFECTS
>>
>> Adding such text could lead to a renewed level of competition in
>> browsers
>> as they find the best ways to expose such tools to users.
>>
>> Such competition would inevitably lead to improved accessibility
>> across
>> the board, as many of these analysis techniques could provide users
>> with
>> anything from a basic hint of the image's contents to fully-
>> interactive
>> reconstructions of the image in more accessible forms (especially in
>> the
>> case of text-in-image or graphs).
>>
>> NEGATIVE EFFECTS
>>
>> Makes the spec longer.
>>
>> CONFORMANCE CLASS CHANGES
>>
>> None.
>>
>> RISKS
>>
>> It is suggested that mentioning that user agents might be able to
>> repair
>> non-conforming pages could make authors less likely to write
>> conforming
>> pages, though it is not clear why this would apply here and not in  
>> the
>> many other parts of the spec that mention repair techniques,
>> especially
>> the sections that explicitly mandate specific user agent repair
>> techniques.
>>
>> -- 
>> Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )
>> \._.,--....,'``.    fL
>> http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _
>> \  ;`._ ,.
>> Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--
>> (,_..'`-.;.'
>>
>
Received on Tuesday, 9 March 2010 23:44:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:59 UTC