E-mail List Archives

Search E-mail List Archives for

Number of posts in this thread: 2 (In chronological order)

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick
Date: Thu, Aug 30 2007 9:10PM
Subject: Re: Investigating theproposedaltattributerecommendationsin HTML 5
No previous message | Next message →

> > To me this is attempting to make a rule for developers to abide by.
> > This is effectively saying "when alt is needed and not
> available don't
> > put null alt just to pass the validator".
>
> Instead, "...the alt attribute may be omitted..." - Andrew,
> how can this be of any benefit to accessibility concerns?

My point is that I don't think that it is causing harm.

> > This is in fact
> > pretty interesting. AT already applies heuristics to guess at the
> > appropriate representation for the image, but not _image_
> heuristics.
> > This would be
> > nice, but we're not there yet.
>
> Precisely, thus it is the responsibility of the developer to
> bridge the gap, and one simple way is to provide the
> alternative text. Otherwise, currently, the heuristic result
> often ends up being "34598_6352.jpg".

Please find a place where I have ever said that alt on an image that is
linked or that represents real content shouldn't have an alt attribute
and a good value.

> Providing the option of omitting alt text will be used as a
> "Free Pass" by some, and they will point to the spec and say
> that it's allowed. It's the thin edge of the wedge.

No more than currently just put alt="" though.

AWK

From: John Foliot - Stanford Online Accessibility Program
Date: Fri, Aug 31 2007 11:10AM
Subject: Re: Investigating theproposedaltattributerecommendationsinHTML 5
← Previous message | No next message

Andrew Kirkpatrick wrote:
>
> My point is that I don't think that it is causing harm.
>

Yet. My concern is that currently there is no real "need" to make this
change, but with it comes the possibility that there may, in the future, be
abuse of the "permission" to not include alt text. If it ain't broke, why
fix it? And if it is broken, then is this really the way to fix it? I've
not seen any proof that it is, and the justification to me is weak.

>
> Please find a place where I have ever said that alt on an image that
> is linked or that represents real content shouldn't have an alt
> attribute and a good value.

Andrew, that is not what I am saying, and I've never suggested that - ever.
Please do not twist my words.

What I am saying is that currently some developers are using alt=""; not
optimum, and frankly disappointing. However, there is no demonstrable harm
from this, outside of the fact that there is an image lacking alternative
text. Some developers simply will continue to develop like this, and no
rules or specs will change that.

However, to my mind there is a world of difference between a spec that
insists that there is some alternative text, and thus tools will try and
encourage authors to supply such, versus a new spec that says specifically
that there are times when no alternative text is permitted. "Policing"
these instances will be impossible, but sloppy / lazy / ignorant
(uninformed) developers will now have the option, perfectly legal by the
spec, of not providing alternative text. This to me is a backward slide,
and one that need not exist. If Flickr and Picasa and that whole class of
photo-sharing sites actually worked at making it easier for content
contributors to add appropriate alt text then we would not need to be
considering this.

We need more education, and not specs that excuse (and permit) poor practice
and ignorance.

>
> No more than currently just put alt="" though.

No argument, however "blessing" this is a whole other situation. Again, to
me it is the cracking of the lid of Pandora's Box.

JF