WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Alt Tags length and Content

for

From: Jukka K. Korpela
Date: Aug 6, 2003 12:38PM

On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 <EMAIL REMOVED> wrote:

> - - I don't understand your
> interpretation of WCAG 1.0 Checkpoint 4.1.

I don't think I interpreted it, just mentioned. The exact text is:
"Clearly identify changes in the natural language of a document's text and
any text equivalents (e.g., captions)."
This is followed bu

> I don't see where it requires identification
> of all changes in language.

It hasn't got the word "any", but it is to be implied - otherwise we could
claim conformance to, say, a checkpoint about tables if one of our tables
complies, on the ground that the checkpoint says "table" and not
"any table". For further confirmation, the associated techniques document
that the checkpoint links to says:
"If you use a number of different languages on a page, make sure that any
changes in language are clearly identified by using the "lang" attribute"
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-HTML-TECHS/#changes-in-lang

> Rather, it specifies identification of the
> predominant natural language of a document's content through markup or HTTP headers.

No, that's Checkpoint 4.3, which is Priority 3 and easy to comply with.
(For some odd reason, the http://www.w3.org/WAI/ page doesn't comply
even with that simple requirement.)

> Of course, using the clearest and simplest language appropriate for a site's
> content (Checkpoint 14.1) is a nebulous requirement at best and a pedantic
> minefield at worst.

Indeed. But I'm pretty sure that for almost any page with nontrivial
content, it is possible to locate a formulation and suggest an
alternative formulation that is clearer and simpler, to virtually
anyone's taste. That would constitute an intersubjective, if not
objective, proof that 14.1 has been violated and claim to WAI
conformance is hence false. This demonstrates why it is foolish to impose
_requirements_ like that. But they _are_ in the guidelines, so hardly
anyone can truthfully claim conformance to them.

> I don't see it that way. By definition, "cryptic" means to be obscure or
> mysterious and to conceal.

We can agree on that.

> I don't think the W3C's "Level Triple-A conformance
> icon, W3C-WAI Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0" alt text is obscure or
> mysterious

It's not cryptic to you or me, but it's surely cryptic to more than 99%
of world population. Besides, I primarily referred to the icon itself,
which is pure abbrev stuff. And the alt text, though more readable, is
hardly much more understandable.

> I believe the visual icon (image) is sufficiently well known by the
> Web Content Accessibility community at large

Maybe, but the icon is used, following W3C suggestions, on all kinds of
pages that are directed to people outside this community, which forms a
very small part of Web users.

> -- or the prompting link will titillate curiosity

Which means total waste of time to most users. Unless the user happens to
belong to the relatively small minority that authors Web pages, the
information is useless (in addition to being hard to understand).

>-- and is a useful propaganda tool for engendering
> Accessibility awareness.

No, I don't think that features that _reduce_ the actual accessibility of
a page (by including obscure content that is useless to most users) is
good propaganda for accessibility.

--
Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/


----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/