Re: img@relaxed CP [was: CfC: Close ISSUE-206: meta-generator by Amicable Resolution]

On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 3:27 AM, Janina Sajka <> wrote:
> But, what's your point here?

The point of my email was to provide a little evidence about what
developers are doing right now, not to interpret it.

> This is certainly not good alt, but I wouldn't call this "harmful."

Do you mean it's helpful? (I think it's better than no alt because it
at least helps identify it as the photo the page is about, but that's
just my 2 cents.)

> No one will die, no one will be rushed to any hospital, etc., etc.

Number of deaths and injuries are obviously the wrong metrics for
assessing document markup practices and the linter behaviours that
occasionally influence them.

Flickr omitting @alt or from the linter not checking for @alt on
images at all would be similarly unlikely to result in deaths and

> And, should the Flicker site developers come to address this issue as a
> result of taking HTML 5 to heart,

Both seem unlikely.

> I'd far rather they followed the WAI
> Ad Hoc guidance fixing thier substandard alt. That would actually
> improve the experience significantly, whereas Ted's opt out would do
> nothing to improve things for anyone, including the uploader.

I'm not sure what you think the @alt would be if they did follow the
WAI ad hoc guidance. Something like "Photo 876 of 985"? Would that
really be a significant improvement for consumers of the photo page?

> Speaking of the uploader, there's every reason the upload tool could
> supply the alt strings contemplated by WAI Ad Hoc when the user hasn't
> bothered to individualize alt on each photo. in this way the WAI solution doesn't
> even require anything from Flicker to improve alt on Flicker.

I don't understand what you're talking about.

Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis

Received on Wednesday, 1 August 2012 02:50:11 UTC