- From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2012 14:58:01 -0500
- To: Steve Faulkner <sfaulkner@paciellogroup.com>
- Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, "Michael[tm] Smith" <mike@w3.org>
Hi Steve and all, You wrote [1]: > it is important to make it crystal clear in the spec text > under what circumstances the attribute can be used. > "The attribute MUST only be used by automated HTML generation software > that offers no opportunity for authors to provide a text alternative. > It MUST not be used by WYSIWYG or any other HTML editing software. > Note: Software that does not provide authors with the ability to add a > text alternative to an image is not considered an accessible HTML > editing tool [ATAG 2.0]" > > Also that the attribute ONLY represents the presence of an image > containing information not otherwise provided in the document. > aka "A key part of the content" > > I consider that this would make it a useful addition for assistive > technology to disambiguate between what is currently referred to in > the spec as an image "A key part of the content" but does not have an > alt provided and the case where an alt is simply not provided which > does not provide any information as to its importance. In this way AT > can inform the user of the presence of the image "important image!" > and attempt heuristics if desired. This is excellent, Steve. Thank you very much. I: * Added your verbiage to both the beginning of "How an incomplete Attribute Can Help Improve the Web" and to the "Details" section of the proposal. [2] * Incorporated part your verbiage [3] into to an alert for a proposed audience based validator user interface [4]. What do you think? Best Regards, Laura [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Aug/0036.html [2] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/User:Lcarlson/ImgElement [3] "This option is for automated HTML generation software developers whose software offers no opportunity for authors to provide a text alternative. WYSIWYG or any other HTML editing software developers should not use this option." [4] http://www.d.umn.edu/~lcarlson/research/206/byaudience.html -- Laura L. Carlson
Received on Saturday, 4 August 2012 19:58:30 UTC