[html4all] Request for review of alt and alt value for authoring or publishing tools
Leif Halvard Silli
lhs at malform.no
Tue Apr 15 17:07:52 PDT 2008
Anne van Kesteren 08-04-16 00.21:
> On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 23:56:36 +0200, Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote:
> > I don't understand. Why can't whatever behaviour will happen for
> > alt="magic vlaue" also happen when the alt="" attribute isn't present?
>
> I think the "opposing viewpoint" is more about today's behavior and
> content than how we can have it in the future. The assumptions seem to be
> that:
>
> * If the alt attribute is specified it is likely to be correct.
>
And if it is correct that it is likely to be "correct", then we should
have an @ALT for VIDEO as well, as I guess will be the same need for
alt="labels" there?
> * If the alt attribute is omitted the more typical case is that the image
> does not convey information.
>
While the other opposition claims that omitted alt means that it was
about content images for which there were no time/urge/method/etc to add
alternative text?
I think there is a consesus that there is a need to define what should
happen when the web application expect the user/author to submit alt
text, but this does not happen.
The first thing is that the web application should actually start to
expect this. If it doesn't tell the user that it expects such input, and
give opportunity to insert it it, then little shall happen. The spec
does not say that such CMS tools must tell that it expect such text. (I
would expect it to help users to mass-insert useful, short, thematic texts.)
The next thing is that there must be defined what shall happen when the
user still, after the web software _gently_ has offered the user to do
add it, still fails to submit such texts. Then there must be a back-up
solution. **Perhaps** this is what we are discussing now.
I don't feel that the spec as it stands is "proactive". "When alt text
is unavailable" is not very clear speak. It is clear that many of us in
the HTML4all flock do not think that not having a backup plan for how to
deal with lack of user submitted alt text is equal to "no alt text
available".
Perhaps what Ian wants to say is that the CMS should never generate alt
texts on its own? And never close an alt with alt="" on its own? But
even the we might not agree. I think it is good if such images are
enumerated. Ian does not. And it sounds to me as if Joshue are more
positive about alt="" than many of us who are not accessibility
professionals.
> Joshue also made the point that AT software skips <img src=...> today
> where they would not skip <img alt=...> today.
>
>
> I think your assumption is that whether the alt attribute is specified or
> not does not affect the likelyhood of it being correct.
"Correct alt" does not sound good in mine ears. But it should not be
misleading.
> (As in, <img
> src=... alt=""> for an image that needs alternate text and <img src=...>
> for an image that doesn't are about as likely to occur.)
>
>
It was not clear to me what you meant by referring to what Joshue said etc.
--
leif halvard silli
More information about the List_HTML4all.org
mailing list