- From: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>
- Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2012 20:32:56 +0100
- To: "Michael[tm] Smith" <mike@w3.org>
- Cc: whatwg@whatwg.org, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 7:08 AM, Michael[tm] Smith <mike@w3.org> wrote: > Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, 2012-08-01 07:56 +0000: >> We briefly brainstormed some ideas on #whatwg earlier tonight, and one >> name in particular that I think could work is the absurdly long >> >> <img src="..." generator-unable-to-provide-required-alt=""> >> >> This has several key characteristics that I think are good: >> >> - it's long, so people aren't going to want to type it out >> - it's long, so it will stick out in copy-and-paste scenarios >> - it's emminently searchable (long unique term) and so will likely lead >> to good documentation if it's adopted >> - the "generator" part implies that it's for use by generators, and may >> discourage authors from using it >> - the "unable" and "required" parts make it obvious that using this >> attribute is an act of last resort > > Speaking as a validator contributor-implementor, I support the addition of > this attribute, with the "generator-unable-to-provide-required-alt" name or > at the very least with the characteristics of the name Hixie outlines here. > > Moreover, I intend to implement experimental support for it in the > validator.nu engine relatively soon. Henri has also stated that he thinks a > related proposal from Ted O'Connor for a similar attribute but with a > different name ("relaxed") "would be eligible for implementation in > Validator.nu if the proposal were adopted by the HTML WG". > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Aug/0020.html > > I suspect that Ted would be amenable to updating that proposal to use the > "generator-unable-to-provide-required-alt" instead of "relaxed", so I think > we have convergence on agreement for adding this attribute. > >> This attribute would be non-conforming except when provided in markup >> generated by user agents that find themselves with an image and no >> suitable alt="" text. It would be a third option in the "Images whose >> contents are not known" section of the spec. It would be mentioned in the >> "Guidance for markup generators" section, along with some text about using >> one of the other two alternatives when the image in question is the center >> of attention on the page (as in the Flickr case), rather than using this >> new attribute. It would replace the "generator" exception in the "Guidance >> for conformance checkers" section. The note in the "generator" section >> would be removed. > > I support all those changes. I can't speak for Henri on all those points, > but note that Henri has also recently indicated he's agreeable to dropping > the "generator" section - > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Aug/0020.html > "I agree that <meta name=generator> is a bad solution both because it > tries to repurpose existing syntax in a way that's not expected by the > current generators of the syntax and because of its lack of > granularity." > >> If we do this, I think we should commit to revisiting the issue in a year >> or two, to examine what impact this is having on Web pages: is the >> attribute used in inappropriate ways? Is it used badly more than >> correctly? Are validator users more or less happy? Most importantly, are >> alt="" texts overall better or worse? Have any generators started using >> the attribute rather than outputting bogus alt="" values? > > Agreed. I support making having some kind of "trial period" like what you > describe, or a year or two or 18 months. If we do that I would prefer that > the spec include some kind of note/warning making it clear that the > attribute is experimental and may be dropped or changed significantly > within the next two years based on analysis we get back during that time. This sounds reasonable I guess. Would it be possible to combine this with the linter complaining about all controls (links, buttons, form fields) have markup that yield a non-empty "accessible name" without invoking repair techniques such as reading filenames without img @src attributes? http://www.w3.org/WAI.new/PF/aria/roles#namecalculation I realise the author requirements in the HTML spec seem to have gradually become very forgiving here, not really sure why. :( I realise that from a linting perspective this isn't 100% simple as you need to check for alternate sources of accessible names like @aria-labelledby and @title etc, and that the algorithm for doing this isn't really properly defined … anywhere … Seemingly falling into the cracks between the ARIA spec, Steve's mapping guide, and the WHATWG HTML spec. The cases where markup generators cannot provide a better control name than _nothing_ seem to me much rarer than the cases where markup generators cannot provide better text alternatives for photos etc - maybe even non-existent - and when hand-authoring describing a control is even easier than coming up with a text equivalent for a graphic. It would help catch the not uncommon antipattern where the "content" of a link or button is provided only by a background image. <a href="somewhere"></a> <a href="somewhere-else"></a> <button class="delete"></button> etc. I'm especially keen on hearing about plausibility from Henri and Michael. -- Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
Received on Saturday, 4 August 2012 19:33:45 UTC