W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-respimg@w3.org > August 2012

Re: Adaptive Image Element Proposal

From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 14:05:45 -0500
Message-ID: <CAOavpvd_xZAUwCEUb97oZJo8ncG2OdciOtf10J1UiksaEEq2yQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mathew Marquis <mat@matmarquis.com>
Cc: Adrian Roselli <Roselli@algonquinstudios.com>, Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, "public-respimg@w3.org" <public-respimg@w3.org>
Hi Mat and Adrian,

Good discussion.

On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Mathew Marquis <mat@matmarquis.com> 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.

Agreed.

>> 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.

Agreed.

>> 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.
http://rebuildingtheweb.com/en/aria-for-content-doomed/

> 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".
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0451.html

IMHO I'd stick with alt.

Best Regards,
Laura

-- 
Laura L. Carlson
Received on Thursday, 30 August 2012 19:07:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:06:07 UTC