- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 13:49:05 +0300
- To: Christophe Strobbe <christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be>
- Cc: W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>
On Apr 14, 2008, at 18:26, Christophe Strobbe wrote: > If HTML 5 were to specify certain values (e.g. "_notsupplied" and > "_decorative") that would need to be used when real text alternative > cannot be provided (as John Foliot proposed at <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/wai-xtech/2008Apr/0094.html > > and <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Apr/0289.html > >), these values could be a technique to meet the last item of > success criterion 1.1 of WCAG 2.0 (<http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-20071211/#text-equiv-all > > in the current draft): > "If it [= non-text content] is pure decoration, or used only for > visual formatting, or if it is not presented to users, then it is > implemented in a way that it can be ignored by assistive technology." > > This would not "require the impossible". It would allow us to keep > the alt attribute as a required attribute in HTML 5, and allow sites > with file upload functions to meet success criterion 1.1 of WCAG 2.0. That's more crufty and inelegant than defining an absent alt attribute to mean "not supplied" and defining alt='' to mean "decorative". The only thing you proposal would accomplish is clinging onto a dogma. It wouldn't make an user agent any more able to present the page to the user. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Tuesday, 15 April 2008 10:50:18 UTC