- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 12:48:55 +0200
- To: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- CC: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 2012-05-18 11:25, Steve Faulkner wrote: > ... > On 16 May 2012 12:58, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net > <mailto:rubys@intertwingly.net>> wrote: > ... > o No evidence was provided that more inaccessible content > would be created if the generator exemption is allowed than > otherwise. So this was taken to be a weak objection. > ... So far I have tried to stay away from accessibility discussions, but... It seems to me that it's obvious that if de facto all non-hand authored pages do not need to provide @alt, then some of them will fail to supply @alt unintentionally. Not having @alt checked when a generator is specified could lead to a situation where people add "generator" to suppress the warnings, and others *remove* generator to actually get them (although it would have made sense to include it). So making this depend on the generator information couples things that are only slightly related, and creates incentive to add bogus generator information when it shouldn't be there, or to remove it when it should be there. And yes, I should have stated that in the survey back then. Best regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 18 May 2012 10:49:34 UTC