Re: DRAFT response Re[4]: Request for PFWG WAI review of Omitting alt Attribute for Critical Content

On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 22:34:47 +0530, Al Gilman <Alfred.S.Gilman@ieee.org>  
wrote:

...
> <finding>
>
> The language "In such cases, the alt attribute may be omitted," gives the
> appearance of creating a policy line that is inconsistent with WCAG,
> whether 1.0 or 2.0. As such, this needs to be changed. HTML WG should
> re-work the <img> element section to bring it into line as techniques
> for implementing WCAG 2.0. We say 2.0 because of the strong
> likelihood that WCAG 2.0 will precede HTML5 to Recommendation status.

Actually, I think the first finding should be that making alt is  
incompatible with accessibility, as determined by WCAG, and in particular  
conflicts with the ability to create automated support for accessibility,  
as determined by ATAG - i.e. put the focus on the groups, rather than on  
strict interpretation of their drafts as some kind of holy writ...

But I agree with the substance of the finding, including the following  
paragraphs.

> WCAG WG is chartered to set Accessibility guidelines and HTML
> WG is not; so HTML5 should be careful to create features that support
> WCAG and describe their use in ways that conform to WCAG.
>
> </finding>

cheers

Chaals

-- 
Charles McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
     je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals   Try Opera 9.5: http://snapshot.opera.com

Received on Wednesday, 6 February 2008 10:07:03 UTC