Re: [whatwg] Adaptive Image Element Proposal

On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 21:01:32 +0100, Adrian Roselli  
<Roselli@algonquinstudios.com> wrote:

>> > 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 (4.8.1.1.1).

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.


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".

>> 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.

-- 
regards, Kornel

Received on Tuesday, 4 September 2012 20:34:27 UTC