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

Re: Alt content [ was: “Adaptive Image Element Proposal”, now off HTML WG list ]

From: Attiks <attiks@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 21:34:37 +0200
Message-ID: <CAM7OHztQQ8pTsMdqDkRp+VcYNvyuZfjqeZm2mAy8417uZ2mpLw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bruce Lawson <brucel@opera.com>
Cc: public-respimg@w3.org, mat@matmarquis.com
Speaking as a drupal developer i'm all  for option 1, and that's what's
implemented in our picture prototype module.

I understand that it's more work if you create your HTML by hand, but I
guess any implementation will be more work.
 On Aug 30, 2012 9:30 PM, "Bruce Lawson" <brucel@opera.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 20:10:54 +0100, Mathew Marquis <mat@matmarquis.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>> 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`
>>
>
> 1) is better. For those who know what alt text is, it's already known and
> understood.
> 2) is  a different pattern, yet does the same thing as (1). It's harder to
> explain, more to understand, requires an id on the <img> which otherwise
> wouldn't need one, and is more to get wrong. It makes a11y harder, and we
> all know that we don't want more impediments.
>
> bruce
>
> (speaking personally, not representing Opera)
>
>
Received on Saturday, 1 September 2012 13:27:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 1 September 2012 13:27:47 GMT