- From: Dave Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 10:06:48 +0300
- To: David Poehlman <poehlman1@comcast.net>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- Cc: James Graham <jg307@cam.ac.uk>, public-html@w3.org, wai-xtech@w3.org, wai-liaison@w3.org
At 12:59 -0400 16/04/08, David Poehlman wrote: >replace not describe. I know that. but what constitutes a workable replacement depends on the meaning of the image in the context of the page. my last example was actually partly serious. If I was doing a seminar for a bunch of well-educated jungian mythology specialists, and the page said "the seminar will focus on the following painting", I may well need quite an extensive description of the image to give those unable to see it an equal understanding of the content. as I say, "how well-thought-out is the alt string" and "what is the alt string" are a difficult pair of questions to combine and get one answer. > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Dave Singer" <singer@apple.com> >To: "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>; "Steven Faulkner" ><faulkner.steve@gmail.com> >Cc: "James Graham" <jg307@cam.ac.uk>; <public-html@w3.org>; ><wai-xtech@w3.org>; <wai-liaison@w3.org> >Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 12:43 PM >Subject: Re: alt and authoring practices > > > >At 13:29 +0200 16/04/08, Anne van Kesteren wrote: >>On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:23:06 +0200, Steven Faulkner >><faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote: >>>I don't quite follow the logic, but that is probably due to my >>>incapacity to understand, but I am pretty sure you are making a >>>worthwhile point and will cogitate on it further. >>> >>>>With nobody having data of usage on the Web the position of the >>>>editor seems more reasonable to me. >>> >>>And that is your prerogative as a member of the working group, I >>>myself do not place faith in the editor as being all seeing and all >>>knowing in the absence of data. >> >>If my reasoning is correct the position of the editor is supported >>by logic which is why his point seems more correct to me. Not >>because he's the editor. >> >>(You assume a minority case is likely to occur more often and the >>editor assumes a majority case is likely to occur more often.) > >I do wonder if we are trying to pack too much into one attribute. >Really, this is brainstorming and may be a bad idea, but are we >trying to pack "what is the alt string" and "how trustworthy is the >alt string" into the same attribute, when it can't be done? the rest >is somewhat in jest... > >maybe we need a second attribute alt-trust-level: > >0 the string is empty or may as well be, or missing: it's worthless >5 the string contains facts even a stupid program could work out >from the image itself (e.g. width and height) >10 the string contains facts that were deduced automatically with >some effort from the image itself >15 the string contains automatically collected ancillary data not >found in the image (e.g. time of capture, camera) >20 the string contains human-entered data of a basic descriptive nature >25 the string contains a rather detailed description of the image >30 the string contains an analysis of the meaning of the picture as >well as its description >100 the string is a doctoral thesis, analyzing the image from every >possible direction, including references to mythological, symbolical >and historical references, history of the place/people shown, >analysis of their health, state of mind, an aesthetic analysis of the >composition, an analysis of the technical competence, and so on > >i'm guessing some people here think everyone should achieve level 20. :-) > >by the way, can one provide alt strings in multiple languages and/or >scripts? what would happen if someone tried level 100? >-- >David Singer >Apple/QuickTime -- David Singer Apple/QuickTime
Received on Monday, 21 April 2008 07:09:33 UTC