W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > wai-xtech@w3.org > May 2008

Re: [html4all] HTML5 Alternative Text, and Authoring Tools

From: Jon Barnett <jonbarnett@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 11:20:30 -0500
Message-ID: <bde87dd20805150920q2abde04bk579c1ef148b28df0@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Henri Sivonen" <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Cc: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "James Graham" <jg307@cam.ac.uk>, "Steven Faulkner" <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, "John Foliot" <foliot@wats.ca>, HTML4All <list@html4all.org>, public-html@w3.org, "W3C WAI-XTECH" <wai-xtech@w3.org>

On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 4:37 AM, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi> wrote:

> I believe the current design in HTML 5 and Validator.nu's Image Report
> feature will pretty much remove the bad effects of requiring alt for
> validation. Thus, if we consider some kind of indifferent zero level of
> aggregate goodness/badness, it removes the negative side, so other things
> can only leave the aggregate positive or to the zero level.
> In all likelihood, it will also lop off *some* of the good effects. Still,
> it seems totally implausible that people who provide alt because they care
> about accessibility would suddenly stop if it weren't a machine-checkable
> *syntax* requirement. Hence, it seems plausible that the aggregate effect
> will remain on the positive side.
> Taking a course of action that has both good and bad effects on top of a
> net-positive aggregate baseline means seeking to do some good while
> accepting collateral damage of the bad side. I think a course of action with
> collateral damage should be based on data about the aggregate delta effect
> of the course of action remaining positive.
> We don't have data about that, so defaulting to removing the negative side
> without knowing the magnitude of either makes sense.

Forgive me for not reading through this entire long (and again
rehashed) thread, but I have been following the discussion on two
different groups for about 2 years.

I totally agree with you here about how you're removing the negative
with minimal detriment to the positive.

It was suggested that the use case for <img> without alt is only ever
the same use case for <figure>.  I tend to agree.  Should <img>
without alt only be allowed a child of a <figure> element?  (Note that
images representing text inside a <legend> should obviously include
@alt).  It would be unique to make an attribute "required except when
the element is a child of x", but still seems reasonable.

Jon Barnett
Received on Thursday, 15 May 2008 16:21:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 20 January 2023 19:58:29 UTC