E-mail List Archives

You are here: Home > Community > E-mail List Archives > View Message

Re: A larger discussion (was RE: Inline Images and ALT text)

From: John Foliot
Date: Jan 14, 2009 5:45PM

Next message: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis: "Re: Failing 13.2 - language meta data"
Previous message:
Christian Heilmann: "Re: rule 12.4 failure - how do identify the
tag?"
Next message in Thread: Léonie Watson: "Re: A larger discussion (was RE: Inline Images and ALT text)"

Previous message in Thread: John E. Brandt: "Re: A larger discussion (was RE: Inline Images and ALT text)"

View all messages in this Thread

Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
>
> But in this specific case, how are users with other
> abilities/disabilities affected by an empty alt?

OK, I'll bite just to keep discussion going (for those lurkers out there).
And let me state that this is also coming from the "Universal Design"
perspective rather than the "accommodation" perspective (either point of
view being germane, neither being wrong)

Scenario: dial-up user in Gopher Gulch USA has images disabled for improved
page load speed. In this case, most browsers will instead show the alt text
associated to the image, and if I, as that Gopher Gulch user decide that I
want to see what Jared looks like (but am less inclined to see what John
Whiting looks like), I can choose to download simply the single image.
Without the presence of alternative text, all I am currently getting is some
additional white space.
(A stretch? Perhaps, but not too much of one. And I also refer once again
to the W3C notion of "author proposes, *user* disposes" as being a best
practices position). As educators/advocates/community leaders, I also
believe that it is important that we walk the walk as well as talking the
talk). As Jared noted, there will likely never be 100% agreement here, as
at the end of the day this is something of a subjective decision. But for
web content, end users can always remove bits of content, but they can never
add bits not supplied.

>
> What value do they draw from it, though? The case you cited ("a
> non-sighted user might want a copy of that image (for a report, to add
> to their social network page, to share with an associate, etc.)") seems
> a bit of an edge case for me, but that's my personal opinion.

<important>
The value (or lack of value) they get from knowing specifically that there
is an image of Jared Smith on that page is equal to the value that any other
sighted user may get - it ranges from zero to 100%; to me what is most
important is that I am not treating the non-sighted user any differently
than the sighted user by deciding to show the image to the sighted, but hide
it from the non-sighted using alt="".
</important>

Why should *I* as webmaster decide what is or isn't important to any given
user? As I said earlier, if it is truly a "throw-away" image, it should be
added to the page as a CSS background. If it is important enough for the
webmaster to include on the page as an inline image, it should be important
enough to inform all users that the image is there (from the get-go).
Having them re-adjust their UA/AT to "discover" images with alt="" is simply
not right (IMHO)

>
> Happy to agree to disagree though :)

Well, it's not so much disagree as talking through the idea fully. I
certainly understand where you and Jared are coming from, and since both of
you are certainly acknowledged web accessibility "experts" (and without any
false modesty, I kinda think I know of what I speak too), I think that it is
important that we air these ideas in public forums (where the majority
simply lurk and learn). I am advocating a position, putting forth my
justifications, and letting readers think and decide for themselves. So are
you, so this is good.

>
> I'll throw in WAI-ARIA "labeledby" and "describedby" as an "alternative
> to alt", if you will...
> http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria/#labelledby
> http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria/#describedby
> (although yes, a static image on a static page may not be the intended
> "Rich Internet Application" usage)

You had to remind me of HTML5 huh <grin>. You're right in principle,
although is the browser/AT support for this really Primetime yet? I'm
thinking that it will be a few years still before we can reliably rely on
these ARIA attributes consistently although that should not stop developers
from implementing ARIA attributes now.

JF
- Next message: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis: "Re: Failing 13.2 - language meta data"
- Previous message:
  Christian Heilmann: "Re: rule 12.4 failure - how do identify the