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

RE: Adaptive Image Element Proposal

From: Konopacki, Daniel <Daniel.Konopacki@disney.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 13:42:39 -0700
To: "'Adrian Roselli'" <Roselli@algonquinstudios.com>, Anselm Hannemann <info@anselm-hannemann.com>
CC: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, Mathew Marquis <mat@matmarquis.com>, 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: <7D664BE6CF058A4CB1A06984A7AA678F17156FA1BF@SM-CALA-VXMB06A.swna.wdpr.disney.com>
Just for clarity's sake, mine isn't an explicit advocacy for @alt on <picture>, simply an @alt-like solution for <picture> outside of <img>. 

Back to your point, however. I fully agree that there will be developers who would not use this approach; the same can be said about @alt in general, however. There are extensive examples today where current <img> elements contain no @alt. Just because some choose not to use it shouldn't be a basis for dismissal.

Further, I would argue that having the option gives a developer greater flexibility. If I have a site I'm deploying that I feel confident the majority of my target market audience - to what my business feels is an acceptable level of tolerance - has the <picture> element, why should I be forced to include <img> simply to provide a textual short description? This makes less sense to me than having an option for employing a short descriptor.


-----Original Message-----
From: Adrian Roselli [mailto:Roselli@algonquinstudios.com] 
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 1:15 PM
To: Konopacki, Daniel; Anselm Hannemann
Cc: Leif Halvard Silli; Laura Carlson; Mathew Marquis; Peter Winnberg; Steve Faulkner; HTML WG; public-respimg@w3.org
Subject: RE: Adaptive Image Element Proposal

See my response to Anselm's response (to my response to his response...).

I am not opposed to @alt existing on <picture> *as well as* <img>, but I don't think it makes sense and I don't think developers will use it.

I have no data to back that up, just experience and gut feeling.


> From: Konopacki, Daniel [mailto:Daniel.Konopacki@disney.com]
> 
> I agree with Anselm's assessment here. If there were either @alt or 
> @alt equivalent for <picture>, I feel that devs could be given an option. For brevity's sake, a simple example:
> 
> Example 1:
> <picture>
>   <img src="file.jpg" alt="Some description" /> </picture>
> 
> Example 2:
> <picture alt="Some description">
>   <img src="file.jpg" alt="Some description" /> </picture>
> 
> In the first example we leave off the @alt attribute from the 
> <picture> tag. Browsers requiring a short text description would then 
> fallback to the <img> @alt value. In the second example, however, 
> there are two @alt attributes. For browsers supporting <picture>, they 
> utilize the <picture> tag's @alt value, while the others will fallback 
> to the <img> @alt value. This both allows devs to write the markup in a more simplistic way (Example 1) and provides a path to future deployments (Example 2 allows the complete omission of <img>).
> 
> > From: Anselm Hannemann [mailto:info@anselm-hannemann.com]
> > 
> > Yes, you miss a point: 
> > In 10-15 years we are not needing the img-element anymore. But then it would be required by spec.
> > This is what I fear of.
> > 
> > -Anselm
> > 
> > Am Donnerstag, 6. September 2012 um 20:22 schrieb Adrian Roselli:
> > > > > Hi Lief,
> > > > > > Needless complexity: The complexity is related to lack of 
> > > > > > support for <picture>
> > > > > 
> > > > > That's right. That is why Mat will be changing the draft spec 
> > > > > to use <img>  with alt for the short text alternative not 
> > > > > <picture>  and a new text alternative method.
> > > > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Sep/0016.h
> > > > > tml
> > > > > 
> > > > What? Why do we rely on the img-fallback(!) now?
> > > > I always thought the img-element is not required but optional 
> > > > (for fallback methods). If we now rely on img for alt-attribute 
> > > > this would require to alway have an img-tag inside of the picture-tag. This is what I call complexity.
> > > > It might be handier to not have to specify 2 
> > > > alt-attribute-values but longterm it is bad spec. The only two 
> > > > valid strategies would be the long version inside the picture-element or the alt-attribute for the picture-element.
> > > > 
> > > > Sorry, I speak for my own but this is a longterm consideration.
> > > 
> > > <picture> needs a fallback of some sort otherwise users in current 
> > > and older browsers won't see any image at all.
> > > 
> > > <img> allows authors to specify a fallback image for those users 
> > > who can see the image but don't have a <picture>-capable browser.
> > > 
> > > For users who simply cannot see images (whether vision impairment 
> > > or unfortunate connection), there still needs to be a text 
> > > fallback somewhere in there. If <img> will be part of <picture> 
> > > and <img> already has rules for @alt, then requiring @alt on 
> > > <picture> just creates more complexity (room for error, mismatches, etc). Therefore, just lean on @alt from the <img> that will already be there.
> > > 
> > > With this method the only complexity above what web developers do 
> > > today is adding the <picture> and its children. And that 
> > > additional complexity will only be there if a developer wants to use this new feature.
> > > 
> > > This only addresses the short text alternative, but I think that's the one you are questioning.
> > > 
> > > Is there a piece I am missing in my (attempted) logic?
Received on Thursday, 6 September 2012 20:43:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 6 September 2012 20:43:31 GMT