[html4all] Fwd: some reflections on @alt usage

[Steven Faulkner]

for those that may be interested: the beat goes on...
Is it worth it? propabaly not.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve at gmail.com>
Date: 2008/8/21
Subject: Re: some reflections on @alt usage
To: Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch>
Cc: Al Gilman <Alfred.S.Gilman at ieee.org>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech at w3.org>


hi ian,


>There are two problems with this. One is that the descriptive
>identification of the non-text content would almost certainly be provided
>anyway, e.g. as the image caption, for all users, and thus including it in
>the alt="" attribute would be redundant, leading to "stuttering" (that is,
>content repetition).


Can you provide the the research to back up the claim that descriptive
identification would almost certainly be provided elsewhere?

The caption for such an image does not necessarily suffice  as the
text alternative, much more descriptive information can be provided
for disabled users who cannot view the image or have a vision
impairment that renders image blurred. Who are you to decide that this
information is not worthy of inclusion by mandating that the alt must
be of the form {}.


In the example below the alt provides descriptive information that may
be useful to visually impaired users. It provides information that
would be obvious to a sighted user but could not be ascertained by a
vison impaired user unless they asked someone to describe it to them.
That is the point of a textual alternative, to provide information to
a disabled user that cannot access the information themselves.

<figure>
<img src="/commons/a/a7/Rorschach1.jpg" alt="a black vertically
symmetrical shape, which contains 4 small white areas and 9 smaller
black blotches seperated from the main body of the shape.">
<legend>A black outline of the first of the ten cards
in the Rorschach inkblot test.</legend>
</figure>


> The following:
>
>   <p>What do you see in the following image?</p>
>   <p><img src=test.jpeg alt="A colour blindness test."></p>
>
> ...is semantically equivalent, for users without images, to the following:
>
>   <p>What do you see in the following image?</p>
>   <p>A colour blindness test.</p>
>
> Which is not at all equivalent.


WCAG does not mandate that the text alternative must be an
'equivalent', it accepts that this is not always possible, in which
case a description is the recommended text alternative.


> Could you give an example of such a page where one would have an image
> that cannot be described when the page is written but where the image
> nonetheless has enough associated data that the user would get confused?
>


examples:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/australia/
http://www.flickr.com/explore/interesting/7days/



> Joshue has provided extremely useful usability studies that we have used
> to help guide the design of HTML5. However, with all due respect to
> Joshue, sometimes even his opinions contradict the evidence he provides.
> That is why it is more important to base our decisions on actual objective
> research. (I say this without meaning any ill will to Joshue at all, I am
> very thankful for all the research he has done for us so far.)


What josh provided was one set of videos, this in way way can be
considered a basis for any decisions, the study is in  no way
'scientific' or objective


> That is why it is more important to base our decisions on actual objective
> research.


All the decisions appear to be made by you, so the use of 'our' seems
incorrect here.

where is this 'objective research'??



> Asking me to speak to other experts is still an argument based on
> authority and not an argument based on research.



At the risk of repeating myself where is this research you have used ?


Talking about arguments based on research rather authority is
hypocritical as these issues are decided by you on the authority that
you have over the what goes into the HTML5 spec. You don't let lack of
research get in your way. So really it ends up that unless your
authority is circumscribed by the authority of the W3C, all the
decisions about what goes into the spec will continue to be made by
you, not by the HTML working group.

Under the present situation, the only hope for any input into the spec
without you calling the shots is at 'last call' when W3C member
organisations can formally object and stop the spec becoming a
candidate recommendation. I for one will be working with disability
organisations who are members of the W3C to this end.

As you are in control, the eventualities of the outcomes are down to you.

so be it.

stevef.