ist
Subject: Re: [whatwg] Alt text authoring Re: Conformance for Mail clients
Indeed. It is the obvious effect of trying to factor unrealistic
ideals into conformance requirements. The harm-minimizing fix is to
concede that you cannot force people to provide alt if they don't
want to and make
On Apr 23, 2007, at 03:00, Andrew Sidwell wrote:
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
How about:
-- image could be omitted without
changing the meaning of the document (screen readers or text-only
browsers could just skip it)
-- image cannot be omitted without
changing the meaning, but no text equivale
text authoring Re: Conformance for Mail clients
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 19:58:13 +0200, Kristof Zelechovski
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For (2): alt="(Your browser does not display graphic images)".
No. Where an alt would be required to makes sense of the image, but is not
there, t
information that the designer considers important.
Chris
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kornel Lesinski
Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2007 9:18 PM
To: Kristof Zelechovski
Cc: whatwg
Subject: Re: [whatwg] Alt text authoring Re: Conformance for Mail
Options might include "image 2 - vista of the canyon" or "image 2" (where
the text already says what that is) or all kinds of other things.
"noalt" is a good idea and leaves no ambiguity.
Except that it breaks all backward compatibility.
Can you please explain how?
doesn't help
the amb
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 01:31:46 +0200, Jon Barnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When UAs do what you describe, do they provide a way to download the image
> (text browsers) or indicate that what's missing in an image (screen
> readers)? What UAs? Is this different from how they currently behave whe
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 19:58:13 +0200, Kristof Zelechovski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> For (2): alt="(Your browser does not display graphic images)".
No. Where an alt would be required to makes sense of the image, but is not
there, the attribute should simply be left out.
Browsers have handled t
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> How about:
>
> -- image could be omitted without
> changing the meaning of the document (screen readers or text-only
> browsers could just skip it)
> -- image cannot be omitted without
> changing the meaning, but no text equivalent is available (screen
> readers or te
When screen readers find img without alt, there typically attempt to
fake alternative text using the src attribute. This can be done crudely
(just reading the whole path) or selectively (just reading the filename,
e.g. gallery2.jpg). Since authors will continue to fail to provide
alternative t
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
How about:
-- image could be omitted without
changing the meaning of the document (screen readers or text-only
browsers could just skip it)
-- image cannot be omitted without
changing the meaning, but no text equivalent is available (screen
readers or text-only b
On Apr 22, 2007, at 2:48 AM, Kornel Lesinski wrote:
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 01:26:55 +0100, Jon Barnett
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
By "entirely omitted alt", do you still only mean WYSIWYG
editors? If not, I agree. The distinction would be as follows:
(1) - This image represents
text,
par
At 07:45 +0200 UTC, on 2007-04-22, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 15:43:14 +0200, Thomas Broyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> 2007/4/19, Matthew Paul Thomas:
>
>> Thunderbird allows you to set 'alt' ...
>> When you drag/drop an image into a message, the default is alt="".
>
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 18:58:13 +0100, Kristof Zelechovski
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
For (2): alt="(Your browser does not display graphic images)".
What's the point? Users who rely on alt attribute know that already, and
unless exactly that phrase is required by the specification (= bad for
For (2): alt="(Your browser does not display graphic images)".
Chris
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jon Barnett
Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2007 7:48 PM
To: Kornel Lesinski
Cc: whatwg
Subject: Re: [whatwg] Alt text authoring Re: C
On 4/22/07, Kornel Lesinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 01:26:55 +0100, Jon Barnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> By "entirely omitted alt", do you still only mean WYSIWYG editors? If
> not, I agree. The distinction would be as follows:
> (1) - This image represents text,
>
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 01:26:55 +0100, Jon Barnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
By "entirely omitted alt", do you still only mean WYSIWYG editors? If
not, I agree. The distinction would be as follows:
(1) - This image represents text,
particularly the word "obvious". Lynx should replace it wi
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 13:08:33 +0200, Maciej Stachowiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Apr 19, 2007, at 3:47 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>>> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
I do think that for blogs or wikis where you are publishing to
the web audience at large, the editing tools should
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 15:43:14 +0200, Thomas Broyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2007/4/19, Matthew Paul Thomas:
> Thunderbird allows you to set 'alt' ...
> When you drag/drop an image into a message, the default is alt="".
Setting a default of alt="" is bad behaviour, since the program has no way
On 4/21/07, Maciej Stachowiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
How is an with empty fallback content different from an
with an empty alt value? It seems like it is just as ambiguous,
since if the fallback content were non-empty it should be substituted.
I guess made an assumption that semantical
On Apr 21, 2007, at 11:30 AM, Jon Barnett wrote:
I've been following this and gathering thoughts.
[...]
2. Images that are content but don't represent text (though they
may be accompanied by a caption - even if the caption could be the
alt text, it would be redundant with the caption rep
On 4/19/07, Kornel Lesinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 21:07:09 +0100, timeless <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As such, encouraging people to include alt tags means the difference
> between me knowing that there's an image I care to look at and not.
If e-mail client automatic
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 21:07:09 +0100, timeless <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As such, encouraging people to include alt tags means the difference
between me knowing that there's an image I care to look at and not.
If e-mail client automatically inserted [image was here] in the text part
of e-mail
On 4/19/07, Matthew Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But it seems likely that the vast majority of non-spam e-mail messages
are sent to individuals who are known by the sender to be
fully-sighted. In that case putting up an interface for entering alt=
text, *just in case* the recipient gets
2007/4/19, Matthew Paul Thomas:
On Apr 19, 2007, at 10:47 PM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
> ...
> For the various reasons discussed in this thread, I cannot think of a
> real justification for making a mail client that breaks one of the
> basic accessibility features that people understand bett
On Apr 19, 2007, at 10:47 PM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
...
For the various reasons discussed in this thread, I cannot think of a
real justification for making a mail client that breaks one of the
basic accessibility features that people understand better than most
others. And I can think
On Apr 19, 2007, at 3:47 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 01:29:39 +0200, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
When I make HTML mail for (solicited) wide distribution, I make
sure to
include alt text. It's becomes especially important when clients are
conf
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 01:29:39 +0200, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> When I make HTML mail for (solicited) wide distribution, I make sure to
> include alt text. It's becomes especially important when clients are
> configured to automatically convert HTML mail to text (as indeed
When I make HTML mail for (solicited) wide distribution, I make sure to
include alt text. It's becomes especially important when clients are
configured to automatically convert HTML mail to text (as indeed my own
Thunderbird currently is). So it's not obvious to me that email
composing programs
On Apr 18, 2007, at 11:56 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 10:32:10 -0400, Maciej Stachowiak
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think it remains the case that for end-user generated content,
there will often be semantically meaningful images that are
meaningful in themselves
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 10:32:10 -0400, Maciej Stachowiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Apr 15, 2007, at 11:48 PM, Karl Dubost wrote:
>> in a drag and drop scenario in your mail.app or other HTML
>> authoring tool, you could imagine:
>> [...]
>> When the image is put in the window, a text is request
30 matches
Mail list logo
