Re: Mandatory and Important

Laura Carlson 2008-08-23 05.41:

>> I'm using a *private* gallery online that I put on my server.
>> I take a *lot* of photos and don't put alt text on them
>> (because 1. don't need it, 2. I don't have time for it). Does
>> that mean it becomes impossible for me to use the
>> tools/services
> 
> No it doesn't. Use the tools/services and let them be
> nonconforming. From an architectural point of view, the
> structure of an image isn't complete without alternate text so
> for that reason alone it shouldn't conform. [...]


The /image/ is complete. That's why it needs a textual equivalent.

The /IMG/ is incomplete without an @alt. But with an emtpy alt="" 
and/or an empty src="", it is architectural complete.

Images can also be inserted via the OBJECT element (IE8 adds full 
support for this). Without fallback text, an OBJECT displaying an 
image is equal to an IMG with an empty @alt. No one are discussing 
whether <object data="image"></object> should be considered 
conforming, or valid ...

> Like Gez wrote [1]:
> 
>> If you do bulk uploads on Flickr intended for your friends
>> and loved ones, it's reasonable that you might decide to add
>> text alternatives later, or maybe never get around to adding
>> them. [...]


I think it is reasonable to consider the {...} syntax as falling 
in under what Gez describes here as "reasonable that you might 
decide to add text alternatives later, or maybe never".

>> Why is it so important that inaccessible content should be
>> considered compliant? Why not allow these edge cases to be
>> considered non-compliant, and have authoring tools encourage
>> authors to author accessible content? [...]


I think that the {...} syntax is also meant as an encouragement to 
create accessible content.

By introducing @role in some fashinon, it would be possible with 
an equalent solution to {...}, but /without/ the {...} syntax.
-- 
leif halvard silli

Received on Saturday, 23 August 2008 16:36:23 UTC