If the developers of flickr.com or Photobucket were to implement the
recommendations regarding the omission of the alt attribute within the
current HTML 5 draft what are the potential effects upon the accessibility
of the sites for users of assistive technology such as screen readers?
If the developers of flickr.com or Photobucket were to implement the
recommendations regarding the omission of the alt attribute within the
current HTML 5 draft what are the potential effects upon the accessibility of
the sites for users of assistive technology such as screen readers?
On 30/08/2007, Brad Pollard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If the developers of flickr.com or Photobucket were to implement the
recommendations regarding the omission of the alt attribute within the
lines: current HTML 5 draft what are the potential effects upon the
accessibility
of the sites for
Does the HTML working group have to take into account accessibility guidelines?
What I mean is, does it have to make alt mandatory because WCAG (any
version) does?
-Alastair
***
List Guidelines:
I will be out of the office starting 30/08/2007 and will not return until
03/09/2007.
For content requests, contact Matt Myers (9651 9128)
For other web-related issues contact Mick Doherty (9651 9426) or Ming Ma
(965 - 19435)
Regards
Alastair Campbell
Does the HTML working group have to take into account
accessibility guidelines?
What I mean is, does it have to make alt mandatory because WCAG (any
version) does?
I don't think HTML5 is expected to be rolled out until 5 years or so. In that
sense, WCAG 1 would
Brad wrote:
Omitting the alt attribute as a requirement may have a level of
appropriateness for sites like flickr
Creating content on the Web that is only accessible by one group of people is
never appropriate.
Sites like flickr have tools that let photo contributors upload photos in
batches
From Laura Carlson:
The HTML WG charter does say:
The HTML Working Group will cooperate with the Web Accessibility
Initiative to ensure that the deliverables will satisfy accessibility
requirements. Coordination with WAI will be primarily conducted
through the Protocol and Formats Working Group,
I can understand what the WG are saying, making it optional isn't going to
dent accessibility
because good coders will use the alt attribute regardless.
In this world there is going to be sloppy coders who dont follow rules and
positive conventions.
Flickr and Photobucket should provide an
Also to lessen the confusion, whilst sites like Flickr are marking up their
HTML with
HTML 4.01 they should continue to follow the rules and provide alt
attributes.
:)
On 8/30/07, James Jeffery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can understand what the WG are saying, making it optional isn't going to
Vlad Alexander (XStandard) wrote:
Brad wrote:
Omitting the alt attribute as a requirement may have a level of
appropriateness for sites like flickr
Creating content on the Web that is only accessible by one group of
people is never appropriate.
That's technically true and even though sites
Lachlan wrote:
the question that still remains is that if allowing the
alt attribute to be omitted when users don't provide any
good text isn't the right solution, then what is? What
should the spec recommend to use in these cases?
It is not the role of the spec to explain how, if you don't
The WG are not going to depreciate it, there going to make it an option to
include
it, so sites like Flickr wont need to include them. In HTML 4.01 if you dont
include the alt attribute, as we all know the document will not validate.
Personally i think by default its usage shouldn't change, so
Vlad Alexander (XStandard) wrote:
Creating content on the Web that is only accessible by one group of people is
never appropriate.
Sites like flickr have tools that let photo contributors upload photos in
batches for convenience. As often happens, convenience for one group of people
causes
On 30 Aug 2007, at 17:51, Designer wrote:
If a user is unfortunate enough to have eyesight which dictates
that he/she has to use a screenreader, it is unlikey that he/she
will get much out of flickr anyway. Even with alt tags, reading
that he/she is 'looking' at a picture of 'my cat' or 'my
Designer wrote:
Even with alt tags, reading that he/she is 'looking' at a
picture of 'my cat' or 'my birthday party' would be
singularly dull, I'd have thought!
The dullness of the alt text is irrelevant. Some people find photo sites dull
and that is just as irrelevant to this discussion.
Lachlan Huntwrote:
the question that still remains is that if allowing the alt attribute to be
omitted when users don't provide any good text isn't the right solution,
then what is? What should the spec recommend to use in these cases?
The problem is differentiating between ignorant and
alastair campbell wrote:
Does the HTML working group have to take into account accessibility
guidelines?
What I mean is, does it have to make alt mandatory because WCAG (any
version) does?
I asked around and got some answers that may answer your question:
Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
The
That's the crux with HTML 5. Some aspects of it will take us forward.
And quite a few aspects will be backwards steps.
The accessibility and internationalization aspects of HTML 5 are going
to be very interesting to say the least.
Andrew
Steven Faulkner wrote:
alastair campbell wrote:
19 matches
Mail list logo
