- From: Chris Blouch <cblouch@aol.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 12:52:11 -0400
- To: joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie
- CC: Al Gilman <Alfred.S.Gilman@IEEE.org>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
I think we sometimes underestimate the value of good web authoring tools where good is defined as ones which at least warn about or flag bad accessibility practices such as leaving out the alt text. We can have good specs and push to get a11y in our web developer training but a publishing/authoring tool which consistently nags the user when they leave out the alt tag may, in the end, have the greatest positive effect. CB Joshue O Connor wrote: > > Al Gilman wrote: > >> But don't underestimate the power of >> running code. If the author's tools flag @alt problems more >> consistently; that replaces many many hours of lecture time in >> the classroom, in terms of "good text alternates" that wind up >> in the live Web. It matters less what reference appears in the >> footnote at the end of the discrepancy-explanation. More that >> the author gets alerted to the discrepancy more consistently. >> HTML WG and HTML5 specification can help us >> get there; do consider reasonable alternatives. > > I don't really follow. If I am parsing this correctly this comment > seems to say that the fact that a tool will flag an error or message > about missing @alt then this is a good way of educating people as to > the importance of @alt? And that this would not happen if the images > have @alt in the first place? This doesn't make sense to me. >
Received on Thursday, 24 April 2008 16:53:39 UTC