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

hi jon,

> There are a couple use cases that have been discussed in depth on this
> lists but are omitted in this proposal:

as it says in the proposal it is a DRAFT, and we are seeking feedback.

> a) An image that is vital to content but its logical alternate text
> would be redundant:
>
> <figure>
> <img src="1100670787_6a7c664aef.jpg" ??? >
> <legend>My dog, Bubbles, digging in the
> sand on the beach.</legend>
> </figure>
>
> Surely alt="" would be incorrect - that would imply that the image is
> meaningless, just like an image that is "Purely Decorative"


i suggest you read the spec, as alt="" does not only mean it  is
"purely decorative" it can also mean that the text alternative is
supplied in the surrounding text.

<img src="1100670787_6a7c664aef.jpg" alt="">
<legend>My dog, Bubbles, digging in the
sand on the beach.</legend>

may be appropriate in this case (where the legend text is an
appropaite text alternative), but it has not been specified in the
spec, as yet, what user agents such as assistive technology should do
in this case.
it may be appropriate that if 2 conditions are met:
1. the image has an associated legend and
2. the alt=""

the AT would use the legend text as the text alternative. again as the
<legend> is being used in a new way in HTML5, the specific use of it
is as yet unknown.

One thing to note is that a legend is not currently required, so would
not conform to WCAG 2.0, which requires a text alternative for all
images.

> b) An image that is vital to content (such as a gallery image) for
> which the user simply did not provide text out of laziness:
>
> <img src="1100670787_6a7c664aef.jpg" ??? >

that is simple, and is covered in the proposal, if the author has not
provided a text alternative the author has produced a non conformant
html5 document.

regards
stevef

2008/5/21 Jon Barnett <jonbarnett@gmail.com>:
> On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 10:28 AM, Steven Faulkner
> <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Dear HTML WG members,
>>
>> The first draft of our rewrite of major sections of 3.12.2 "The img
>> element" in the HTML5 draft is now available:
>>
>> http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/misc/uc/
>>
>
> There are a couple use cases that have been discussed in depth on this
> lists but are omitted in this proposal:
>
> a) An image that is vital to content but its logical alternate text
> would be redundant:
>
> <figure>
> <img src="1100670787_6a7c664aef.jpg" ??? >
> <legend>My dog, Bubbles, digging in the
> sand on the beach.</legend>
> </figure>
>
> Surely alt="" would be incorrect - that would imply that the image is
> meaningless, just like an image that is "Purely Decorative"
>
> b) An image that is vital to content (such as a gallery image) for
> which the user simply did not provide text out of laziness:
>
> <img src="1100670787_6a7c664aef.jpg" ??? >
>
> If the user's tool generates alt="", that would imply that the image
> is meaningless.  If the user's tool omits alt, the page's HTML is
> invalid the semantics are left undefined.  The current HTML5 draft
> defines semantics for this case and UAs can use.
>
> The current HTML5 draft handle both of those use cases in a better
> manner by just omitting the alt attribute and still covers all the
> other use cases in this proposal.
>
> --
> Jon Barnett
>



-- 
with regards

Steve Faulkner
Technical Director - TPG Europe
Director - Web Accessibility Tools Consortium

www.paciellogroup.com | www.wat-c.org
Web Accessibility Toolbar -
http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html

Received on Wednesday, 21 May 2008 09:21:09 UTC