W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > wai-xtech@w3.org > August 2008

Re: Flickr and alt

From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 00:52:05 +0100
Message-ID: <48AA0B25.80709@splintered.co.uk>
To: David Poehlman <david.poehlman@handsontechnologeyes.com>
CC: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>, Sam Kuper <sam.kuper@uclmail.net>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>, public-html@w3.org

David Poehlman wrote:
> I think my answer is fairly clear, but I'll state it in concreet terms. 
> There seems to be an attitude and not here that accessibility is somehow up 
> to someone else other than those who can make it happen.  It's either up to 
> the screen reader developpers, <wrong>, the users, <wrong> and you see where 
> this is headed.

It's up to the authors, to use the relevant parts that need to be in the 
spec, which are then correctly picked up by screen readers / AT. But 
authors can't be coerced into doing the right thing simply by mandating 
the mechanism that, only if used properly, enhances accessibility, imho.

> that the pain for 
> the many outweighs the needs of the few .

The problem, it seems, is that the pain (failed validation?) won't 
automatically result in the correct behaviour (providing relevant @alt), 
but only in the minimum effort required to make the pain go away 
(putting *anything* into @alt, even adding a null @alt, just to get the 
thumbs-up from the validator).

Patrick H. Lauke
re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
[latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk
Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
Received on Monday, 18 August 2008 23:52:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:25:22 UTC