[html4all] 5 gears in reverse - anne v k enters the alt attributedebate

[John Foliot]

Steven Faulkner wrote:
> 
> "I am currently following HTML5 (omitting alt) as it wasn't really
> clear to me what would be a better solution given the single
> constraint I have: not finding it necessary to provide replacement
> text for all those images. This would take too much time for little
> benefit."    
> 
> His statement appears to widen the debate and put forward what I have
> suspected is one of the key motivations for making the alt attribute
> optional, namely where an author does not find it necessary to make
> the images accessible.   
> 


While the discussion regarding the Doctype is of some interest, I think one
of the key points made by Steven was missed; the fact that the decision of
including or not including ALT content appears to be based on author
*opinion*.  To quote Anne: "...not finding it necessary..." (because it
would take too much time?)

This has been what I have argued from the beginning - by making the
attribute an author based decision creates a scenario where authors can (and
most likely will) start finding "justifications" based on their opinions,
rather than facts.  Already we have seen (directly and indirectly) that many
of the draft authors are at times unclear or unaware of some of the subtle
nuances behind accessibility considerations.  We have absolutely nothing to
indicate that, given these intelligent and informed content authors are oft
unclear, that the "mainstream" authors who will be taking this new standard
will be any better or wiser in making these determinations.  This then will
open the door to a backward slide - the Pandora's box I have referenced so
often.

While Anne may not find it necessary to add alternative text, he is not
dependant on it, thus his motivations for adding or not adding are skewed by
his personal perception and reality.

*THAT's* why making the alt attribute mandatory is so wrong.

JF