RE: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-31 / ISSUE-80 validation survey

Aryeh Gregor wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 5:51 PM, Leif Halvard Silli
> <> wrote:
> > So what and for whom would be better by omitting the @alt?
> That is not something I ever stated an opinion on.  I was providing
> factual evidence, not passing judgment on anything.  The alt text I
> cited is clearly "bogus" in the sense that it's added solely to evade
> validation errors, without any attempt to actually provide a useful
> text alternative to the image.  I make no claims beyond that.
> If you have questions about the evidence I provided, of a sort that
> would likely be germane should the issue be reopened, then it's
> possible this list is a correct place to ask.  Otherwise, I most
> likely will not respond further on this list, because (if I interpret
> the chairs correctly) such discussion is unwanted here at this point.

Hi Aryeh,

This may or may not be germane, but I think it might also be worth 

Whether by inserting bogus text, or now by inserting the generator string, 
who is being best served here, and why? Do content owners and developers 
think that meeting an arbitrary validation check-point results in the best 
user experience for their users?  If yes, why, and if no, why are we now 
advocating for, or now sanctioning a mechanism that silences validation 
errors, while at the same time producing a poor to useless user experience?

Simply put, what is more important, a validation green-light badge, or an 
inclusive user experience?

(Note, this is not a question directed directly at MediWiki and vBulletin, 
although it is a relevant question for those applications. It is however a 
conceptually larger question for all on this list.)


Received on Thursday, 21 April 2011 22:54:30 UTC