- From: David Poehlman <david.poehlman@handsontechnologeyes.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 17:19:44 -0400
- To: "Steve Faulkner" <sfaulkner@paciellogroup.com>, "Henri Sivonen" <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Cc: "HTMLWG" <public-html@w3.org>, <wai-xtech@w3.org>
What is gained by not providing the user with the benefit of the knowledge of the presence of an image? This is equivelant to sending me to a text only version of a site. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Faulkner" <sfaulkner@paciellogroup.com> To: "Henri Sivonen" <hsivonen@iki.fi> Cc: "HTMLWG" <public-html@w3.org>; <wai-xtech@w3.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 6:58 AM Subject: Re: Investigating the proposed alt attribute recommendations in HTML 5 Hi Henri, >Great work. Thank you. Based on your testing, it is clear that the >current state of JAWS is so bad that indeed any generated placeholder >alt text (even the empty string) is better than omitting it. thanks, this testing is just a start... >That behavior is that alt='' suppresses >the image altogether but the omission of the attribute causes a >bearable placeholder to be presented so that the user knows that >there's an image. The problem with this is that there is no way for the software to know whether the images presence needs to be announced to the user. for example in the cases of decorative images or layout images without an alt attribute how are these to be filtered out from images that contain "critical content" without an alt attribute. What is clear (to me) is that using the omission of the alt attribute is not and will not be a sufficent flag to assitve tech. Currently something like 30% (not sure of the exact stats) of images on the web do not have alt attributes, of these how is the assistive tech to discern which are worthy of announcing to a user and which are to be safely ignored? One suggestion has been to provide a noalt attribute I am as yet unsure of the merits of this proposal. Another suggestion would be to require the alt unless the image has meta data explicitly associated with it in some other way. I also asked the question on the list ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Sep/0150.html) whether alt=" " (quote space quote) could be used to flag images that should have an alt text but none is supplied. I thought it was clear from the information contained in the testing, but will restate it: when images are the sole content of a link and it does not have an alt attribute JAWS looks for a title attribute on the image, if no title is present then it announces the image src when images are the sole content of a link and it does not have an alt attribute Window Eyes looks for a title attribute on the image or parent element, if no title is present then it announces the image src For images that are not the sole content of a link then the image is ignored (presence of image is not announced). so: <img scr="poot.jpg"> image is ignored <img scr="poot.jpg alt=""> image is ignored <img src="poot.jpg" title="poot"> title is announced <a href="poot.html"><img scr="poot.jpg"></a> src is announced <a href="poot.html"><img scr="poot.jpg" title="poot"></a> title is announced <a href="poot.html" title="poot"><img scr="poot.jpg"></a> title is announced (window eyes) src is announced (JAWS) >it is clear that the current state of JAWS is so bad I don't know what you would expect a screen reader to do? The apparent reasoning (from the spec) behind allowing the alt to be omitted (in certain circumnstances) is that the image is "critical content" In this case it is suggested that heuristics be used by the software to provide information about the image. And that is what it attempts to do. >When making Web pages today, catering to today's JAWS, which >apparently has unbearable placeholders, makes sense. It doesn't >*necessarily* follow, though, that writing the spec to *require* (as >opposed to *allow*) catering for the flaws of today's version of JAWS >makes sense considering the entire life span of the spec. agreed except that we are not just talking about JAWS, we are also talking about other screen readers such as Window Eyes (a more complete picture will emerge once further testing is carried out), but simply allowing the alt attribute to be omitted does not solve the problem, and could conceivably worsen the problem as authors and authoring tool vendors are sent the message (via the spec) that the alt is optional. Anyway thanks for your thoughts Henri. On 11/09/2007, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi> wrote: > > On Aug 29, 2007, at 21:48, Steven Faulkner wrote: > > > Investigating the proposed alt attribute recommendations in HTML 5 - > > http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/articles/altinhtml5.html > > Great work. Thank you. Based on your testing, it is clear that the > current state of JAWS is so bad that indeed any generated placeholder > alt text (even the empty string) is better than omitting it. > > Back when I advocated for allowing the omission of the alt attribute > when the markup generator does not have a textual alternative > available, I based my argument on the behavior of Lynx (at least some > version with some settings). That behavior is that alt='' suppresses > the image altogether but the omission of the attribute causes a > bearable placeholder to be presented so that the user knows that > there's an image. > > When making Web pages today, catering to today's JAWS, which > apparently has unbearable placeholders, makes sense. It doesn't > *necessarily* follow, though, that writing the spec to *require* (as > opposed to *allow*) catering for the flaws of today's version of JAWS > makes sense considering the entire life span of the spec. > > What, in your opinion, is the outlook on JAWS ever getting fixed? (By > "fixed" I mean to have image place holders that give a better user > experience than alt="" or alt="image" or page content duplication in > the case of a non-decorative image.) Should this WG expect that 7 > years from now, the market leader in voice browsing still hasn't > evolved to have better heuristics to such extent that J. Random Web > app developer can do better by putting together *some* generated alt > text (even alt='', alt='image' or duplicating other data already on > the page)? > > (This is not a flame. This is an honest question. I admit that I > don't understand the competitive landscape of voice browsing. I'm in > awe that a product behaving like JAWS can be the market leader.) > > -- > Henri Sivonen > hsivonen@iki.fi > http://hsivonen.iki.fi/ > > > -- with regards Steve Faulkner Technical Director - TPG Europe Director - Web Accessibility Tools Consortium www.paciellogroup.com | www.wat-c.org Web Accessibility Toolbar - http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html
Received on Tuesday, 11 September 2007 21:20:27 UTC