From P.Taylor at Rhul.Ac.Uk Wed Jun 2 13:19:03 2010 From: P.Taylor at Rhul.Ac.Uk (Philip Taylor (Webmaster, Ret'd)) Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2010 21:19:03 +0100 Subject: [html4all] Results of Image Analysis Heuristics HTMLWG decision In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C06BCB7.9080503@Rhul.Ac.Uk> Laura Carlson wrote: > The following is the announcement: > > Working Group Decision on ISSUE-66 - Image Analysis Heuristics > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jun/0001.html > > Sam has directed Ian to remove the text: > http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9835 OK, I assume that because I have long been separated from this activity I have lost the plot, but it is not at all clear to me why the text needs to be removed. Surely the key word in it is "may", where it reads : "User agents /may/ also apply heuristics to help the user [...]" Whether or not such heuristics are viable at the moment is not the issue; why would we (the HTML accessibility movement, for want of a better phrase) want to deliberately block a user agent from applying heuristics to help the user ? ** Phil-the-confused. From laura.lee.carlson at gmail.com Wed Jun 2 13:31:22 2010 From: laura.lee.carlson at gmail.com (Laura Carlson) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 15:31:22 -0500 Subject: [html4all] Results of Image Analysis Heuristics HTMLWG decision In-Reply-To: <4C06BCB7.9080503@Rhul.Ac.Uk> References: <4C06BCB7.9080503@Rhul.Ac.Uk> Message-ID: Hi Phillip, > OK, I assume that because I have long been separated from > this activity I have lost the plot, but it is not at all > clear to me why the text needs to be removed. Surely the > key word in it is "may", where it reads : > > "User agents /may/ also apply heuristics to help the user [...]" > > Whether or not such heuristics are viable at the moment > is not the issue; why would we (the HTML accessibility > movement, for want of a better phrase) want to deliberately > block a user agent from applying heuristics to help the user ? Matt's Change proposal and the survey give rationale: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImageHeuristics http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/issue-66-objection-poll/results Best Regards, Laura -- Laura L. Carlson From P.Taylor at Rhul.Ac.Uk Wed Jun 2 13:37:07 2010 From: P.Taylor at Rhul.Ac.Uk (Philip Taylor (Webmaster, Ret'd)) Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2010 21:37:07 +0100 Subject: [html4all] Results of Image Analysis Heuristics HTMLWG decision In-Reply-To: References: <4C06BCB7.9080503@Rhul.Ac.Uk> Message-ID: <4C06C0F3.8050300@Rhul.Ac.Uk> Laura Carlson wrote: > Matt's Change proposal and the survey give rationale: > > http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImageHeuristics > http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/issue-66-objection-poll/results Thank you, Laura, but as an unbiased observer, I cannot agree with Matt's statement. He writes : "This text should be stricken, because it gives the message that this is viable now, and a reasonable substitute for @alt. Neither is true. " but the text neither suggests that these heuristics are currently viable, nor (and this is more important) does it suggest that those heuristics can replace ALT text. Perhaps that suggestion comes from text that is not cited, but there is no suggestion of "replacing ALT" in the text that has now been instructed to be stricken. ** Phil. From xn--mlform-iua at xn--mlform-iua.no Wed Jun 2 13:50:06 2010 From: xn--mlform-iua at xn--mlform-iua.no (Leif Halvard Silli) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 22:50:06 +0200 Subject: [html4all] Results of Image Analysis Heuristics HTMLWG decision In-Reply-To: <4C06C0F3.8050300@Rhul.Ac.Uk> References: <4C06BCB7.9080503@Rhul.Ac.Uk> <4C06C0F3.8050300@Rhul.Ac.Uk> Message-ID: <20100602225006021420.9e949031@xn--mlform-iua.no> Philip Taylor (Webmaster, Ret'd), Wed, 02 Jun 2010 21:37:07 +0100: > > > Laura Carlson wrote: > >> Matt's Change proposal and the survey give rationale: >> >> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImageHeuristics >> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/issue-66-objection-poll/results > > Thank you, Laura, but as an unbiased observer, I cannot > agree with Matt's statement. He writes : > > "This text should be stricken, because it gives the message that this > is viable now, and a reasonable substitute for @alt. Neither is true. > " > > but the text neither suggests that these heuristics > are currently viable, nor (and this is more important) > does it suggest that those heuristics can replace > ALT text. Perhaps that suggestion comes from text > that is not cited, but there is no suggestion of > "replacing ALT" in the text that has now been > instructed to be stricken. I guess when he says "gives the message", then he means "will have the *effect* of sending the message". Anyway, if all good intents and good ideas should be expressed in the spec, then it would never get ready. The chairs have expressed that they try to select the solutions that meets least opposition. My view is that it not a loss that this text has been removed. -- lh