Re: [html4all] New issue: IMG section of HTML5 draft contradicts WCAG 1 & WCAG 2 (draft)

Off cycling now, so my last contribution
for a while :

Charles McCathieNevile wrote:

> 1. Because that does not mean anything in most langauges of the world.

It means neither more, nor less, than "Mt Fuji, the peak bathed
in early evening sunset orange, silhouetted against a background
of pellucid white cumulus clouds", which most of us (and I suspect
that includes yourself) would regard as a totally acceptable ALT
text for an image depicting that scene ...

> 2. Because you are unlikely to come up with a complete text string that  
> people always emit correctly, and get it implemented through the various  
> tool chains in use, with anything like the same efficiency as working out  
> what the lack of an alt attribute means.

Why ?  These are /automated/ tools, and it is therefore trivial
to modify them to emit a pre-agreed string in circumstances
such as these.

> 3. Because it isn't actually a terribly helpful statement for a person to  
> hear multiple times.

I agree.

> 4. It means that all legacy testing systems will have to be rebuilt to  
> ensure that they recognise this magic string as being equivalent to not  
> having any alt attribute.

It is /not/ equivalent : that is the whole point.

** Phil.

Received on Friday, 11 April 2008 12:08:19 UTC