W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2012

Re: Request to Reconsider Alt Guidance Location

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 20:48:52 +0100
To: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
Cc: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Michael Smith <mike@w3.org>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, public-html@w3.org, Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>, Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20120223204852324483.880df528@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Janina Sajka, Thu, 23 Feb 2012 12:41:18 -0500:
> Leif Halvard Silli writes:
>> Btw, I agree that two HTML5 specs should not contradict each others. 
>> But I do think HTML5 'proper' should contain basic advice and rules. 
> Are you asserting that alternative text applies only to HTML?

Why do you ask, when the CP *does* suggest to have have a HTML5 
specific guide - in the form of Steve's alt techniques spec? Changing 
his spec to be a co-deliverable of the HTML WG and the WAI WG, does not 
change that it is a HTML5 specific text. That you also, at the same 
time, want to make it less normative, also do no change that it is 
HTMl5 specific.

If this CP was accepted, then how could there be any @alt text 
validation in the HTML5 validator? Would that kind of validation not 
need an extra step - e.g. a separate A11Y validation? The CP is 
critical about HTML5's options for not including the @alt attribute. 
But how does the fact that the CP suggests to 'Remove normative aspects 
of the techniques document', make a difference to that problem?

I think it would be great if the @alt text rules could be simplified. 
And in that regard, it has been claimed it is better to have short and 
clear advice rather than longwinded and intricate advice - which can be 
important too, but short and clear rules are also needed.

With regard to WCAG 2.0, then I don't have a problem with it, but have 
a problem with its normativeness: The general rules are normative, 
while the concrete techniques are only non-normative advice — one often 
gets to hear that it is just the opinion of those who contributed to 
the technique. It is confusing.

The good thing with a normative spec is that what it is says tried out 
and wetted more thoroughly than non-normative specs. At least, that is 
my perception of the effect of being normative.

I am not complete and forever opposed to having it in a separate spec 
and to make that spec less normative. But I see the above mentioned 
issues with the proposed direction.
Leif Halvard Silli
Received on Thursday, 23 February 2012 19:49:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:48 UTC