- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 22:16:27 +0000
- To: wai-xtech@w3.org
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 "") 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