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 20:47:15 +0000
To: Kornel Lesiński <kornel@geekhood.net>, "public-respimg@w3.org" <public-respimg@w3.org>
CC: whatwg <whatwg@whatwg.org>
Message-ID: <0CB063710346B446A5B5DC305BF8EA3E26F0DC@Ex2010MBX.development.algonquinstudios.com>
> From: Kornel Lesiński [mailto:kornel@geekhood.net]
> >> > So, how would the hyperlink in this example work for *all* users?
> >>
> >> I disagree with premise of this question. I don't think it should
> >> work for all users.
> >>
> >> If the link is in alternative content, then by definition it is
> >> intended only for users who cannot see the picture, e.g. it could be
> >> a link to longdesc-type of page that contains no useful information
> >> for sighted users.
> >
> > By definition "the value must be an appropriate replacement for the
> > image." It does not say it is solely for users who cannot see the
> > picture (
> You're right, there is nothing saying "solely". However, the spec also doesn't
> say that alt needs to be accessible when images are displayed.


> Currently UAs don't make it easy to see alt when images are displayed. IE
> used to display alt as a tooltip even when images were enabled, and this has
> been called out as an error and fixed.

Also agreed, and the IE change suggests general agreement.

> Section 4.8.1 starts with: "the value of the alt attribute provides equivalent
> content for those who cannot process images or who have image loading
> disabled.".
> I think it's reasonable to flip this and interpret it as "alt is not for those who
> have images enabled and process them".

I can buy into that.

> >> The link should be inaccessible to sighted users in the same way <img
> >> alt="text"> is inaccessible.
> > [...]
> >
> > There are many cases where a sighted user access @alt text. The
> > biggest one is when the referenced file is missing. Other cases
> > include bad/dropped connections, bad reference (404), unsupported file
> > format, corrupt file, and a mean game of hide-and-seek.
> But that is not the case when image is displayed.
> When image is not displayed *for any reason*, then the alternative should
> be shown, and then the link would be accessible.


My point was more about @alt being solely for non-sighted users. I felt that starting off with that premise could lead to conclusions based on a faulty base.

Apparently I am feeling pedantic today.

Received on Tuesday, 4 September 2012 20:47:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 4 September 2012 20:47:45 GMT