Re: Adaptive Image Element Proposal

Hi Mat and Adrian,

Good discussion.

On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Mathew Marquis <> wrote:
> On Aug 30, 2012, at 1:10 PM, Adrian Roselli wrote:

>> I feel that diligent authors who care about these issues will include an <img> as a fallback and will also be aware of the need for @alt and will be capable of copying the text into both of them. I doubt that will happen in all (or most) cases, sadly, so I agree that simplicity is important. However, making this a requirement for validation puts the onus on the developer and acts as a reminder to do his/her job.
>> Outside of human authors I see this is a simpler issue for WYSIWYG applications and generated HTML to handle -- just duplicate the @alt text that has been provided elsewhere (again, presuming the user has even provided it). Getting toolmakers to do that, however, I know from experience is an uphill battle, but is at least possible.


>> I think the spec authors don't have such an absolute view. I feel they chose the option most likely to be supported with the least confusion and pre-existing use cases. Authors can still decide to exclude it, they'll just be going against the spec.
> Speaking at least for myself, this is the case. It may be a bit redundant to specify the `alt` attribute twice, but it seems to me that this is the path of least resistance in terms of authorship—leading to a better overall experience for users on assistive technologies.


>> It (aria-labelledby) is a bit more complicated. It also feels more complicated than the replicated @alt, which doesn't mean you can't use ARIA.

It is complex and vendors have raised concerns.

> I agree. Now, likewise, I see no reason why `aria-labelledby` couldn’t be used here, but I’m not convinced we should make it a requirement.

aria-labelledby does not make the image element valid. The Chairs
decision found "to be redundant with other constructs".

IMHO I'd stick with alt.

Best Regards,

Laura L. Carlson

Received on Thursday, 30 August 2012 19:06:18 UTC