- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 02:26:13 +0200
- To: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
- Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Aryeh Gregor, Thu, 21 Apr 2011 18:27:29 -0400: > 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? > 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. Your claim is that individuals insert images without proper @alt text into MediaWiki web pages. But given that you sent us a bug report, it seems the "without any attempt" characterization points back to the developers. E.g. I don't believe for second that the average Wikipedia user adds anything "solely to evade validation errors". > 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. I hope that Maciej takes note of our exchange. If the chairs needs to see that images that are *not* inside a link but where the @alt text only duplicates a visible caption, then I have no problem with providing such evidence. E.g. here is a page in English were the main image has a bogus @alt, a bogus @title and a bogus visible caption (bogus since they all have the same content): http://www.dagbladet.no/a/14020240/ Why do they add all those bogus values? Who knows. But the blame is, again, much more on the CMS makers than on the individual image inserter. -- Leif Halvard Silli
Received on Friday, 22 April 2011 00:26:42 UTC