RE: One more thought about requiring the alt to add to the pile

Steven Faulkner wrote:
> Ok so you have provided one more class "map sites" still don't add up
> to much. 
> 

...and then we will have wikis, and then blogs, and then other types of CMS
tools which allow users to log on, browse their local drive and upload a
photo.  They too will wiggle their way into the same "subset" club, as to
see them differently than Flickr is "unfair", and gives Flickr a
market-place advantage (and we can't have that).

When I noted that the draft had upped the number of "vacation photos" to
8,000 from 3,000 Ian asked if he should make the number smaller.  The point
really is that >=1 can and probably will seek the same dispensation as those
sites that may in fact deal with large numbers of photos.  You can't use the
number as a factor in deciding the "rare subset".  In fact, unless there is
a specific list of sites that reside in the 'rare subset', then anyone
really is eligible for admission to the club.

When all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others, then
everyone will want to be a pig.

>> previously mentioned, Rorschach tests.
> 
> There is no consensus or even tide of opinion towrds this being
> considered a legitimate use case for omitting the alt 
> both WCAG 1 and 2 conflict with this.
> So really it's just you who thinks this is legit. I haven't seen
> *anybody* else on the HTML WG defend your opinion on this. 
> 
> We shall await the PF WG's advice on this and other matters related
> to your definition of "text alternative" or "alternative text" 
> 
> I did note what Henri sivonen had to say[1] on the subject in IRC,
> perhaps you missed it: 
> 
> [10:54] <hsivonen> Hixie: btw, I think WCAG 2.0 is rather reasonable
> about the inkblot case and the HTML5 example takes "alternative" too
> literally 

Yep, this should just be nuked - period.

JF

Received on Friday, 18 April 2008 08:06:21 UTC