- From: Adrian Roselli <Roselli@algonquinstudios.com>
- Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 18:22:39 +0000
- To: Anselm Hannemann <info@anselm-hannemann.com>
- CC: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, Mathew Marquis <mat@matmarquis.com>, Peter Winnberg <peter.winnberg@gmail.com>, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, "public-respimg@w3.org" <public-respimg@w3.org>
> From: Anselm Hannemann [mailto:info@anselm-hannemann.com] > > > Hi Lief, > > > Needless complexity: The complexity is related to lack of support for > > > <picture> > > > > That's right. That is why Mat will be changing the draft spec to use > > <img> with alt for the short text alternative not <picture> and a new > > text alternative method. > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Sep/0016.html > > > What? Why do we rely on the img-fallback(!) now? > I always thought the img-element is not required but optional (for fallback > methods). If we now rely on img for alt-attribute this would require to alway > have an img-tag inside of the picture-tag. This is what I call complexity. > It might be handier to not have to specify 2 alt-attribute-values but longterm > it is bad spec. The only two valid strategies would be the long version inside > the picture-element or the alt-attribute for the picture-element. > > Sorry, I speak for my own but this is a longterm consideration. <picture> needs a fallback of some sort otherwise users in current and older browsers won't see any image at all. <img> allows authors to specify a fallback image for those users who can see the image but don't have a <picture>-capable browser. For users who simply cannot see images (whether vision impairment or unfortunate connection), there still needs to be a text fallback somewhere in there. If <img> will be part of <picture> and <img> already has rules for @alt, then requiring @alt on <picture> just creates more complexity (room for error, mismatches, etc). Therefore, just lean on @alt from the <img> that will already be there. With this method the only complexity above what web developers do today is adding the <picture> and its children. And that additional complexity will only be there if a developer wants to use this new feature. This only addresses the short text alternative, but I think that's the one you are questioning. Is there a piece I am missing in my (attempted) logic?
Received on Thursday, 6 September 2012 18:23:09 UTC