- From: Adrian Roselli <Roselli@algonquinstudios.com>
- Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 20:01:44 +0000
- To: Mathew Marquis <mat@matmarquis.com>, "public-respimg@w3.org" <public-respimg@w3.org>
> From: Mathew Marquis [mailto:mat@matmarquis.com] [...] > What I’d like to do here is get your thoughts, as authors, on the following: > > 1) Duplicating the `alt` attribute on both `picture` and the fallback `img` > 2) `alt` specified on fallback `img`, using `aria-labelledby` on `picture` to reference > the ID of the fallback `img` [...] I think you know where I stand since you followed that conversation, but to respond here: I vote for (1). I think <img>/@alt should be required and explicitly spelled out as such. To build on that, I feel that it will be easier for authors and toolmakers to just require the @alt on <img>, not on <picture>. Let <picture> rely on <img>/@alt as a single place for fallback content (essentially dump @alt from <picture> altogether). Then there is no need to worry about duplicating @alt to <picture> and we can lean on existing @alt rules, expectations, and even tool implementations.
Received on Thursday, 30 August 2012 20:02:14 UTC