- From: John Foliot <foliot@wats.ca>
- Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 11:58:54 -0700
- To: "'Henri Sivonen'" <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Cc: "'HTML4All'" <list@html4all.org>, "'W3C WAI-XTECH'" <wai-xtech@w3.org>, "'HTML WG'" <public-html@w3.org>
Henri Sivonen wrote: > > I think it isn't worthwhile for me to address your other points when > it seems you don't believe that the primary functions on a camera and > a photo hosting service are capturing pixels and hosting them > respectively. I accept that. This however is a re-direct on your part that skirts the real issue. Those images are not presented in a vacuum - they use HTML as a binder to gather and present the files as web content. If all you want is an FTP link for people to look at pictures then we have no debate: present your tree view of the FTP directory complete with cryptic file name(s) and browse away (there's a paved cowpath for you). But that's not what the majority want either. The moment you add the additional layer of the HTML container, then we are talking about a different beast altogether, as you are seeking to make those cryptic file names meaningful to those who can visualize (the majority) by adding essentially a GUI interface - yet the current proposal says "Pfttt..." to those who cannot work with a GUI interface (the minority), and who instead require semantic logic and structured, complete disclosure of information. The current proposal of optional @alt suggests that "cryptic file names" or worse *NO INFORMATION* should be deemed acceptable to some users, simply because the majority *might* not provide such, and that automated systems should not take some responsibility for providing any kind of information. It suggests that somehow the very same genius engineers/developers who will unveil heuristic image analysis some day in the future cannot figure out a better solution than making an established convention today optional moving forward. > > As for social engineering, if you cannot acknowledge what the people > whose behavior you are trying to modify are seeking to do without your > intervention, you can't develop successful social engineering > strategies except by accident. Whereas you cannot come to terms with the fact that if you cannot or do not seek to change peoples behaviour, and in fact remove any moral or social pressure to do so, that change will *never* happen. Throughout the majority of the 20th century, most people saw cigarette smoking not only as socially acceptable (movies, television), but even "normal", "sexy" (Marlboro Man) or "cool" (Joe Camel) - that's the way it was, and using the paved cowpath logic, that's the way it should have stayed. Times have changed though, albeit slowly, and there is still resistance today from some people who do not want to quit smoking, and the pipeline continues to be filled with new, young smokers, despite the overwhelming evidence that now shows smoking is bad for you. What really do you not understand about social engineering? You cannot change everyone's thinking, especially over-night, yet societally speaking smoking is no longer considered "normal" or acceptable, and those who continue to do so are now ostracized by "rules" that infuriate some (as they stand huddled 10 meters away from the building entrance at "break time"), but have - over time - created the climate where the greater goal/benefit is beginning to emerge (and it warrants mentioning that this change has taken longer than 10 years - far longer than the popularization of the world wide web). Restaurants no longer have ash-trays, newlyweds no longer order embossed matchbooks, new cars do not have ashtrays or cigarette lighters, etc. etc. You don't just throw up your hands and say "...oh well, some people will never stop smoking, so let's stop trying." ("...oh well, some content authors will never bother to add alternative text, so let's just make it optional sometimes.") It is now 'against the rules/non-conformant' to smoke in restaurants, and doing so has consequences - oh physically you can, but socially you cannot. Should social engineers stop trying to get people to quit smoking, even when it is clear that for some smokers, they do not want to be told that smoking is bad? Sure, we will continue to get some bad alt text (some people who quit smoking start up again), but gradually the pendulum swings to where we want it, and suggesting to make @alt optional in the future disrupts the progress that has been made to date. You overlook the context of time. JF
Received on Tuesday, 15 April 2008 18:59:51 UTC