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

Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis writes:
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 3:27 AM, Janina Sajka <> wrote:
> > 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?
Absolutely. It's precise and that's significant, where "Photo" is
anything but.

Anyone who needs alt is unlikely to spend much time on Flicker to begin
with. So, if someone does have a reason, the x of y precision is exactly the
kind of automated alt that can be helpful. That's why WAI recommended

> > 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.
The client application that a user uses to upload to Flicker can just as easily fill
missing alt with x of y as can Flicker itself.


> --
> Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis


Janina Sajka,	Phone:	+1.443.300.2200

The Linux Foundation
Chair, Open Accessibility:

The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
Chair,	Protocols & Formats
	Indie UI

Received on Wednesday, 1 August 2012 04:16:14 UTC