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

RE: Adaptive Image Element Proposal

From: Adrian Roselli <Roselli@algonquinstudios.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 20:14:46 +0000
To: Mathew Marquis <mat@matmarquis.com>, Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
CC: 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>
Message-ID: <0CB063710346B446A5B5DC305BF8EA3E26EF5D@Ex2010MBX.development.algonquinstudios.com>
> From: Mathew Marquis [mailto:mat@matmarquis.com] 
> Based on the feedback we've received in both this thread and a
> quick informal poll of developer preference in the respimg CG's
> mailing list ( archived here:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-
> respimg/2012Aug/0045.html ), it seems that while it's generally
> accepted that the `aria-describedby` approach is the more elegant
> of the two approaches, the duplicated `alt` attribute is the more
> intuitive. It also stands to have the `alt` information available
> to the widest number of users, where `aria-describedby` may not be
> available in all contexts. It's unfortunate, but our obligation is
> to the end users first and foremost.
> I think our best bet is to require that authors specify an `alt`
> attribute on both `picture` and the fallback `img`. There has been
> a great deal of discussion along these lines to support that
> decision, as outlined in Laura's incredibly helpful message here:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-
> respimg/2012Aug/0047.html

I don't take Laura's message to say that @alt should appear on both <picture> and <img>, just that the ARIA role isn't a fit. I only mention this because I didn't read her message as an endorsement of a double-@alt, just on @alt over ARIA.

In your survey to the community group you outlined two options. I know I saw at least one other person (who wasn't me) propose a third. Which you start to touch on next...

> I am still curious about the viability of allowing an `alt`
> specified on the fallback `img` to "bubble up" to the parent
> `picture` element - if that should be possible, I think it would be
> ideal if we could mention that specifying an `alt` on the fallback
> `img` applicable to the parent `picture` is also a valid approach.

I still see @alt on *both* <picture> and <img> to be at risk from copy-paste errors (at least until authoring/WYSIWYG tools catch up). Even if not that, when someone changes the value of one it seems likely to me that the other could (will) be missed.

I'd rather see <picture>'s fallback rely on the existing momentum <img> has with its @alt -- just rely on <img> to be the fallback both for the alternate image and the @alt text. Leave @alt off <picture> altogether.

I am also trying to look at this in a vacuum, without bringing <figure> into play and without drawing comparisons to <object> and <canvas>, partly because so many young web devs I know have no concept of how those elements work and aren't in a position to make the same analogous connections we are.

Or am I missing something fundamental here?
Received on Tuesday, 4 September 2012 20:15:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 4 September 2012 20:15:15 GMT