- From: Matt Morgan-May <mattmay@adobe.com>
- Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 15:56:36 -0700
- To: Andrew Sidwell <w3c@andrewsidwell.co.uk>, John Foliot <foliot@wats.ca>
- CC: <public-html@w3.org>, "'W3C WAI-XTECH'" <wai-xtech@w3.org>, <wai-liaison@w3.org>, "'HTML4All'" <list@html4all.org>
On 5/22/08 10:33 AM, "Andrew Sidwell" <w3c@andrewsidwell.co.uk> wrote: >> Well then, making @alt optional in the edge case of Flickr or an inkblot >> test is then moot. Those edge cases will remain non-conformant, and @alt as >> a mandatory requirement is a sealed deal, as optimising for edge cases is >> not a reasonable thing to do. > > Flickr is hardly an edge case. On the contrary: Flickr is the _ultimate_ edge case. I'll be the first to admit that there is a ceiling to what value Flickr can provide to non-sighted users (though the addition of video, and the audio that accompanies it, does alter the landscape). But even though user-sourced material can't be expected for all uploaded images, @alt can be provided for each of the 60-70 other images in that same document, even if in many cases it should be @alt="". If even the poster child for optional @alt can apply meaningful alt text to 98%+ of the images it serves, then I fail to see how that's reason enough to make @alt optional for the rest of the web. Less than 2% of the image content on the most popular photo site on the web being inexpressible? I call that an edge. (Besides, the issue isn't even that it couldn't be expressed, it's that it's understood that alt text won't be created, and Flickr doesn't store or retrieve it anyway.) - m
Received on Friday, 23 May 2008 23:06:38 UTC