Re: DRAFT response Re[3]: Request for PFWG WAI review of Omitting alt Attribute for Critical Content

Al Gilman <> opined:

> The language "In such cases, the alt attribute may be omitted," may
> be intended as a fatalistic statement of fact, but it gives the
> appearance of creating a policy line that is inconsistent with WCAG,
> whether 1.0 or 2.0. As such, this needs to be changed. HTML WG should
> re-work the <img> element section to bring it into line as techniques
> for implementing WCAG 2.0. We say 2.0 because of the strong
> likelihood that WCAG 2.0 will precede HTML5 to Recommendation status.

I think we should be clearer.

[[[ If an image is a key part of the content, the alt attribute
must not be specified with an empty value. ]]]

Is very important. I think we should request that a missing alt value be  
considered invalid, although for accessibility reasons it is preferred to  
the more serious error of marking meaningful content which requires an  
alternative with alt=""

> WCAG WG is chartered to set Accessibility guidelines and HTML
> WG is not; so HTML5 should be careful to create features that support
> WCAG and describe their use in ways that conform to WCAG.




Charles McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
     je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk              Try the Kestrel - Opera 9.5 alpha

Received on Thursday, 29 November 2007 09:49:09 UTC