Re: null alt-text, surveys, and progress of ERT (was: Re: null alt-text, spacers, etc. etc.)

Wendy,

This seems to be a very contentious issue so perhaps a user survey could
help to bring consensus. Can we get the survey going soon?

I have a few comments on your technique 1.1.A:

- The IMG and INPUT elements should not be grouped together in one
technique. The evaluation is different (all IMG elements require ALT but
only INPUT elements with a TYPE attribute of IMAGE require ALT) and the
repair is different (IMG elements can be bullets or HRs but INPUTs are
unlikely to be).

- The current ERT has an 'Other Checks' point for this technique that is
missing in your technique (It states "After user has entered ALT text for
the image, check the site for other instances of the image. If the site
contains other images that are the same and they do not have ALT text,
suggest that all same images without ALT text use the new ALT text.").
Should we put it back in?

On rereading the technique I noticed that we have the suggested maximum
length of ALT text at 150 characters. I don't think we discussed this max
and it seems a bit long to me. I suggest we reduce the suggested maximum
length of ALT text to only 75 characters.

Chris


----- Original Message -----
From: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
To: <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2000 5:34 PM
Subject: null alt-text, surveys, and progress of ERT (was: Re: null
alt-text, spacers, etc. etc.)


> I have reposted my proposal for null alt-text, spacers, etc. [1].  However
> I do not feel that it is finished yet. After the discussion that we have
> had on this list and the WCAG list about alt-text, I think we ought to
> stage another survey.  There are a lot of opinions on this topic in both
> this group and the WCAG working group.  It would be good to find out the
> current sentiment of users, both experienced and novice.  Len's survey
> provides a good starting point. I would like responses from more users and
> with a wider range of experience with the Web.
>
> As a first step towards a new survey, I started implementing the examples
> from the Techniques from WCAG [2].
>
> Note that this is a draft since
> 1. i wanted feedback on whether this is a good idea before investing more
> time (items marked with @@ are not complete) and
> 2. this was my first attempt and could probably be made clearer or better
> in some way.
>
> I have been including implementation information for WCAG's sake. We might
> want to separate these out at some point...or include the info as
> footnotes??  Not sure.
>
> Please note that I do not think this needs to hold up work on the ERT in
> any way.  We should still be aiming to release a first draft in
> February.  As such, I believe we can put our best understanding of the
> situation in the document.  Working drafts have the following statement in
> their status:
> <blockquote>This is a W3C Working Draft for review by W3C members and
other
> interested parties. It is a draft document and may be updated, replaced,
or
> obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use W3C
> Working Drafts as reference material or to cite them as other than "work
in
> progress".
> </blockquote>
>
> please send reviews to the list.  note that i am working with ian to
> install a more automated issue tracking tool.  this should be up and
> running this week.
>
> thoughts?
> --w
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/IG/ert/tech1-1.html
> [2] http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/IG/ert/survey1-1.html
> --
> wendy a chisholm
> world wide web consortium
> web accessibility initiative
> madison, wi usa
> tel: +1 608 663 6346
> /--

Received on Wednesday, 12 January 2000 09:46:05 UTC