Re: ALT issue redux

Al Gilman wrote:

> I think that a better way to frame the argument is something like:
> 
> <reasoning>
> 
> 1.  By the principles, HTML5 wants to support accessibility
> 
> 2.  By their charters, WAI groups (here WCAG) are the go-to
> experts in matters of accessibility
> 
> 3.  WCAG requires @alt (WCAG1) or the function that in HTML4
> is provided by @alt (WCAG2)  [editorial note -- add links]
> 
> 4.  By the principles, if it 'tain't broke, don't fix it.
> 
> 5.  Conclusion:  barring the introduction of three fresh good
> reasons for a change, the failure of the HTML5 draft to make
> @alt on <img> an across-the-board requirement (even if sometimes
> it has the value of &quot;&quot;) is a bug.  Or do you have
> reasons?
> 
> </reasoning>

To play devil's advocate - or to preempt the probable response from HTML WG:

1. having @alt in the spec counts as "supporting" accessibility, which 
is different from "mandating"

3. and WCAG can certainly mandate/require @alt, but it's not the purpose 
of the HTML5 spec to mandate accessibility, only support it

4. it's broken because, in the wild, the proportion of images lacking 
@alt (or with broken/incomplete/inappropriate @alt) is a few orders of 
magnitude higher than that of properly @alt-ed images. this despite 
making @alt mandatory for validation XHTML

P
-- 
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
http://redux.deviantart.com
______________________________________________________________
Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
http://webstandards.org/
______________________________________________________________

Received on Monday, 4 February 2008 22:16:41 UTC