Re: HTML Action Item 54 - ...draft text for HTML 5 spec to require producers/authors to include @alt on img elements.

On May 13, 2008, at 6:52 AM, Robert J Burns wrote:

> Hi Andrew,
> On May 13, 2008, at 12:53 PM, Andrew Sidwell wrote:
>> I have reservations about adding to this thread, but so it goes...   
>> (I fear I'm making the same point Dave Singer rather excellently  
>> made.)
>> Steven Faulkner wrote:
>>> dear maciej,
>>>> It is not a matter of opinion. Making a use-case non-conforming  
>>>> is by
>>> definition not handling it for purposes of document conformance. It
>>> may be a >conscious choice to reject a use case, but it is not
>>> support.
>>> you assume without justification, that it is desirable or right to
>>> accommodate use cases that  result in important data and/or data
>>> relationships not being provided. i don't subscribe to this.
>> I would be happy if someone (or several someones) in favour of  
>> making alt mandatory in all cases would answer very simply: How  
>> does a blind photographer mark up a photo, which is known to be  
>> critical content, but which she herself cannot describe?
> According to the new draft section, the alt attribute is not to be  
> used for description of photographs that are critical content.

I don't think that is what the AI54 proposal says. Under "Images of  
Pictures" (which includes photographs):

"Appropriate alt text value for a picture is a brief description, or  
name. As in all alt text authoring decisions, writing suitable text  
equivalents for pictures requires human judgment. The alt text value  
is subjective to the context where the image is used and the page  
author's writing style."

The example given is:
<img src="1100670787_6a7c664aef.jpg" alt="My dog, Bubbles, digging in  
the sand on the beach">
<legend>Bubbles traveled everywhere with us.</legend>

The AI54 proposal says non-empty alt is mandatory for any image that  
is not purely decorative.


Received on Tuesday, 13 May 2008 17:56:05 UTC