Re: [WSG] Investigating the proposed alt attribute recommendations in HTML 5
On Mon, September 10, 2007 1:44 am, Nick Gleitzman wrote: Hassan Schroeder wrote: Absolutely. But this whole thread started with the issue of whether alt text should be optional in HTML5. Well, that's simple enough. The only reason the alt-text is being proposed to be optional is because Microsoft are involved with defining HTML5. Microsoft have always been against standards; they chose not to be involved with XHTML and (having seen the threat that represented to them) have joined with HTML5 in order to water down the standards. Microsoft have millions of legacy Websites built with their own proprietary, non-standards HTML using their deficient WYSIWYG software. If those sites fall down in Standards compliant browsers, Microsoft has egg on it's face for going against standards in the first place and millions of complaining customers. This also the reason they have never produced a Standards compliant browser - they have to cater for backwards compatibility with all those sites written in their proprietary versions of HTML. This is why alt-text is proposed being optional - its nothing to do with it's effectiveness as an aid to accessibility or anything to do with improving standards. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Investigating the proposed alt attribute recommendations in HTML 5
On Mon, September 10, 2007 2:24 am, Hassan Schroeder wrote: Nick Gleitzman wrote: A photocopy may be a poor, 2-dimensional representation of the real thing, but a blank piece of paper isn't anything at all... Which is more useful? Depends on whether you're just curious what a sandwich looks like or you're starving, I guess -- if the latter, the answer is neither :-) Or if you're really starving - the blank piece of paper (less chemical additives) ;-) *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Investigating the proposed alt attribute recommendations in HTML 5
On 9 Sep 2007, at 16:33, Michael Yeaney wrote: I find it interesting that everyone responding to this thread has failed to mention one very important aspect of any design-for-accessibility debate: Until you actually test it with a target audience/persona (i.e., someone who actually **is** blind), People seem to be rather hung up on the idea that alt text is for blind people. Some sighted people do use text browsers. Some sighted people do disable images in their browsers (I'm one of them and my last cellphone bill still had £20 of data charges on it). Then there are search engine indexing bots, and probably a host of other use cases. -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk/ http://blog.dorward.me.uk/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Investigating the proposed alt attribute recommendations in HTML 5
Hi Stuart On 10/09/2007, Stuart Foulstone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, September 10, 2007 1:44 am, Nick Gleitzman wrote: Hassan Schroeder wrote: Absolutely. But this whole thread started with the issue of whether alt text should be optional in HTML5. Well, that's simple enough. The only reason the alt-text is being proposed to be optional is because Microsoft are involved with defining HTML5. OK I have *no intention* of stirring the pot on this one, but I do need to know how much of your statement is Fact and how much is Opinion? I know that there are members of the HTML 5 WG that don't support inclusion of the alt attribute in the proposed specs - that's how this thread started- but if you're going to throught comments like that around, can you reference them for readers of the thread? Microsoft have always been against standards; they chose not to be involved with XHTML and (having seen the threat that represented to them) have joined with HTML5 in order to water down the standards. The HTML 5 WG actually has both MS and Opera staff working on it. Lachlan Hunt who commented on this thread earlier is on the HTML 5 WG and is going to work for opera in a month or so. ... -- Lisa Herrod Scenarioseven.com.au Scenariogirl.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Investigating the proposed alt attribute recommendations in HTML 5
Lachlan Hunt wrote: What should an authoring tool (like Dreamweaver) insert by default when a user adds an image and immediately dismisses the alt text prompt? (It currently omits the attribute unless the user explicitly selects empty or types in some text.) Currently, most screen technology would prefer alt=, as this signals that the value string for ALT is... Nothing. Not great, to be sure, but better than DC10567.jpg or echoing back information provided elsewhere (through @caption or @title or similar) What should wikipedia use by default for images used in articles? (It currently redundantly repeats the image caption in both the alt and title attributes) Wikipedia should allow users to specify alt text (it currently does not). By design, when uploading an image, there should be a default table in the DB for alternative text. Given the many times that images in tools such as wikipedia re-use images, content authors should be prompted to use the default alternative text, or supply 'new' alt text. Currently wikipedia's answer is to not allow content contributors to provide *any* alt text. What should sites like Flickr, Photobucket, Facebook, MySpace, etc. generate and insert? Same as above What should forums (e.g. phpBB) or blogs (e.g. Blogger) use? Same as above What should an email application insert when a user emails an image to a friend? This one is trickier, and makes presumptions that are not in evidence. For example, this presumes that everyone is using HTML rich email, a bad presumption. It secondly presumes that personal one-to-one correspondence might be shared, a bit of a stretch. However, assuming that a user is creating HTML rich email in an authoring environment like Outlook, the tool should prompt for alt text similar to what tools such as Dreamweaver should do, and provide the same fallback: alt=. In online environments (Yahoo!Mail or Gmail or what-ever) then they should handle this question like Flickr and Photobucket would. Nothing in the world will be able to force a content creator to do the right thing, however entrenching the option to do the wrong thing should never be considered as part of an emergent spec. If currently the tools don't get it right, fix the tools, don't change the rules. JF *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Investigating the proposed alt attribute recommendations in HTML 5
Gunlaug Sørtun wrote: Designer wrote: http://www.nga.gov/feature/rothko/classic1.shtm. Using this arbitrary example, I still maintain that a site of images such as any of these will be of no more value to a blind user for having alt tags, other than to point out that 'there is a picture there'. Of what, the blind user has no idea because they are impossible to describe. You're arguing as if a site, or the web as a whole for that matter, exists in isolation. The 'label' you mention in the part I've left out, may indeed be just the cue a visitor need. More information can then either be found on the page/site, somewhere else on the web, or in the real world. By providing cues - meaningful alt text and/or otherwise - about the original, a suitable translation can often be found elsewhere by those who want one. By not providing cues, we do indeed leave visitors in the dark. ( The site you use as example, contains more than enough information alongside the image. A reference - alt attribute - to tell _which_ image that information belongs to is missing though. Several other weaknesses on that example-site btw - all regarding images. ) There are art galleries that experiment with techniques to make art - paintings or other types of art - more accessible to those who can't fully use the senses the artist aimed at. Some of these techniques are well suited for the digital world, but I don't think they have spread to the web, yet. Will something get lost in translation? Surely it will. However, that doesn't mean a blind user is necessarily left with no idea. Blind people's senses may also be developed far beyond what we - the seeing - may imagine. I do have a friend who can interpret flat images pretty well by the use of her hands. She is sensing differences in reflected temperature, instead of reflected light that most of us are limited too. That she also tends to get the use of colors more or less right, is even more surprising. Given a few more cues she gets a pretty good understanding about most pictures. This just to say: don't underestimate people's ability to appreciate something, just based on what senses they do *not* have. Alt attributes should stay - be required in HTML 5, and they should be used in a meaningful way. What's meaningful depends on the case, but if images are important parts of the content then an alt text should be provided - even if it is just a 'label'. regards Georg Hi Georg, I think we are just splitting hairs now. What I said in my conclusion was: a) I personally do use alt tags, every time : (In other words, I agree with you in principle) and b) but I am aware of situations where they are pretty useless. (In other words I know their limitations in certain cases and can see why it is being suggested that they are 'optional'. -- Bob www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Investigating the proposed alt attribute recommendations in HTML 5
Designer wrote: I think we are just splitting hairs now. I agree (to a degree), but I wanted to paint it out with a smaller brush :-) a) I personally do use alt tags, every time : (In other words, I agree with you in principle) Principles are good when aiming for best practices, but are worth next to nothing to the many who don't study (or care about) best practices if those principles aren't at least (going to be) backed up by a standard and can (to some degree) be checked automatically. To (too) many the word optional means not worth bothering about, even if that's *not* the meaning given in the suggestion regarding alt attribute for HTML5. b) but I am aware of situations where they are pretty useless. (In other words I know their limitations in certain cases and can see why it is being suggested that they are 'optional'. Personally I can't see any case where the alt attribute is completely useless, but I definitely can see lots of cases where it in itself falls short of solving the problems related to alternative description of an image. We do have some optional additions to the alt attribute in existing standards, but their use are not all that well defined, and they are rarely used - maybe because they are, and have to be, optional. So, I don't want the alt attribute to become optional just because we don't have good solutions for its shortcomings, or the way it is used / misused / not used, at the moment. Instead, we need to look for better solutions, and they may even be based on progress in any field made between now and the time HTML5 can be put to use. regards Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Investigating the proposed alt attribute recommendations in HTML 5
Designer (Bob) wrote: Those images just cannot be appreciated by someone who cannot see them. No amount of descriptive prose will mean anything to to a blind reader. I've never heard such shit in my life. Designer (Bob) wrote: I personally do use alt tags, every time : but I am aware of situations where they are pretty useless. Bob, I suspect the problem is that you don't know how to use alt text correctly. Let me backup my statement with some examples from your Web site. On your home page: http://www.rhh.myzen.co.uk/gam/index.php You've made your company logo, an information image, into a decorative image: img src=opening/graphics/gaminternet.gif alt=/ On this page: http://www.rhh.myzen.co.uk/gam/altgam/gwelanmor.php You've made an images of quote marks, decorative images, into an informative images: img src=graphics/8220.gif alt=leftquote graphic .../ img src=graphics/8221.gif alt=leftquote graphic .../ You also put one of these decorative images with alt text into the middle of a sentence so the sentence now reads like this: We have been involved in professional computing for more leftquote graphic than 20 years ... In another graphic on this page, I don't know what this alt text means: img src=graphics/marramgrass.gif alt= ... / Bob, the following link may help you better understand the difference between decorative and non-decorative images: http://xhtml.com/en/xhtml/reference/img/ Regards, -Vlad http://xhtml.com Original Message From: Designer Date: 2007-09-08 1:22 PM Rahul Gonsalves wrote: On 31-Aug-07, at 11:08 PM, Designer wrote: Well Vlad, whether it fits your conception or not, there is such a thing as a site whose prime function is visual. The only 'information' in the site I mentioned is what something 'looks like'. If you can't see it, there is nothing you can do to help that. It's a sad fact of life I'm afraid. Bob, While not quite in direct response to your statement, I thought I'd share this article from over at A List Apart: http://alistapart.com/articles/revivinganorexicwebwriting Specifically the 'A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words' bit. I admit to having overlooked alt text. Until a year ago I sniffed at the idea of creating useful alt text for images. �If a user is blind,� I reasoned, �what does he care that I have a photograph of the university tower on my website?� My fellow designer shrugged. �Well, I guess if you don�t really care about what the image says,� she said slowly, �you really don�t need it in the first place.� Best, - Rahul. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Hi Rahul., Whilst interesting and quite valid, I think the article is not about stuff on web sites that are primarily visual art. What I mean is that the sort of stuff which is purely visual poetry cannot have an alt tag which adds anything other than a 'lable'. Consider (just as an example) a web site to accompany a show by Mark Rothko, with a handful of images from the show displayed on the site. Those images just cannot be appreciated by someone who cannot see them. No amount of descriptive prose will mean anything to to a blind reader. (In fact, the images lose a lot compared to their actual presence in the gallery, even for sighted viewers). In case you are unfamiliar with Rothko, you can see stuff at : http://www.nga.gov/feature/rothko/classic1.shtm. Using this arbitrary example, I still maintain that a site of images such as any of these will be of no more value to a blind user for having alt tags, other than to point out that 'there is a picture there'. Of what, the blind user has no idea because they are impossible to describe. I personally do use alt tags, every time : but I am aware of situations where they are pretty useless. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Investigating the proposed alt attribute recommendations in HTML 5
Hi, There are no situations where use of the alt tag is useless - the null tag means that the name of the image file is not read out. What may be useless is inappropriate positioning and the wording of the alt tag. Here's aa example of coding where appropriate positioning with meaningful alt text (or null alt text) should have been used, but wasn't: span class=sentence We have been involved in professional computing for more img src=graphics/8221.gif alt=leftquote graphic class=graphic right/ than 20 years and have 11 years experience in web page design and implementation. /span (yes, they also didn't code the img end-tag correctly) This reads: We have been involved in professional computing for more leftquote graphic than 20 years ... Here the image should be positioned at the end of a quoted paragraphs (with CSS for visual positioning) and have more meaningful alt-text such as unquote (with the corresponding quote at the beginning) - they certainly don't need to be told it's a graphic. In this case the user does not want to know the content of the graphic, but rather it's semantic meaning in the document structure - a simple but all too common mistake. Stuart On Sun, September 9, 2007 11:42 am, Designer wrote: Hi Georg, I think we are just splitting hairs now. What I said in my conclusion was: a) I personally do use alt tags, every time : (In other words, I agree with you in principle) and b) but I am aware of situations where they are pretty useless. (In other words I know their limitations in certain cases and can see why it is being suggested that they are 'optional'. -- Bob www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Investigating the proposed alt attribute recommendations in HTML 5
Bob: No amount of descriptive prose will mean anything to to a blind reader. Vlad: I've never heard such sh*t in my life. I've been following this thread with interest, and I have to agree with Vlad (if not with his exact choice of words...). I was waiting to see what kind of response Bob's assertion would generate, but I thought I'd let those already involved in the discussion have first say... Language is what we have as our primary tool of communication. There are others, of course - Rothko's paintings speak volumes (even if the man himself lets them speak, choosing enigmatic reservation about their meaning) - but to presume that because someone is blind, they can't understand the content of a visual image via a word-based description is incredibly (ahem) short-sighted. They're blind, not brain-dead. I'd suggest the shortcoming is not in their ability to understand an 'alt' description, but in your ability, Bob, to write one. To bring this back on-topic: it's not feasible, of course, to include a thousand-word essay as an 'alt' parameter of an img tag, if that's what's necessary to communicate the image's meaning (although there are other methods of supplying such meta-info). But including succinct, meaningful 'alt' descriptions of visual and/or graphic content can make blind people's experience of the web immeasurably richer. The skill of writing those 'alt's is part of writing for the web in general - a tricky and quite specific discipline. Being a web designer doesn't automatically include qualification as a web *writer*. If you can't do it, give the job to someone who can. N ___ omnivision. websight. http://www.omnivision.com.au/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Investigating the proposed alt attribute recommendations in HTML 5
On Sun, September 9, 2007 2:56 pm, Vlad Alexander wrote: On your home page: http://www.rhh.myzen.co.uk/gam/index.php You've made your company logo, an information image, into a decorative image: img src=opening/graphics/gaminternet.gif alt=/ Actually logos are essentially visual branding - if you can't see it there is no absolutely no point in it. Hence, to a blind person it's merely decorative and putting anything other than null alt-text is pointless (except in the very rare cases where the name of the company does not appear in text at the beginning of page content or in the title meta tag). An exception is where the logo image is used as an image-link to the Homepage. Then the alt text gets tricky - do you put link to homepsge explicitly or do you put companyname logo (because this linking of the logo to the Homepage is common practice). I'd go for the former rather than the latter. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Investigating the proposed alt attribute recommendations in HTML 5
I find it interesting that everyone responding to this thread has failed to mention one very important aspect of any design-for-accessibility debate: Until you actually test it with a target audience/persona (i.e., someone who actually **is** blind), we're all just guessing at the relative importance of the issue at hand. Keep in mind, that some may hear the page read aloud and think 'Sheesh - enough with the graphics descriptions that keep interrupting the text flow of the page'. And yes, I've witnessed this, and it is **very** humbling. We can read the specifications all day long and apply them in a (seemingly) 100% correct manner, and yet still totally ruin the experience for some. Test, test, test. Mike *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Investigating the proposed alt attribute recommendations in HTML 5
Nick Gleitzman wrote:
Language is what we have as our primary tool of communication. There are
others, of course - Rothko's paintings speak volumes (even if the man
himself lets them speak, choosing enigmatic reservation about their
meaning) - but to presume that because someone is blind, they can't
understand the content of a visual image via a word-based description is
incredibly (ahem) short-sighted. They're blind, not brain-dead. I'd
suggest the shortcoming is not in their ability to understand an 'alt'
description, but in your ability, Bob, to write one.
Perhaps then you (or anyone adhering to this view) can supply, as
an example, a useful description of the cited Rothko? Or maybe one
of Jackson Pollock's works? ('No. 5, 1948' might be good)
And since art is often intended to prompt an emotional reaction on
the part of the audience, write that description so the audience
has an opportunity to connect emotionally with the described work
without putting your own bias into it...
Ready, set, go! :-)
--
Hassan Schroeder - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Webtuitive Design === (+1) 408-938-0567 === http://webtuitive.com
dream. code.
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
Re: [WSG] Investigating the proposed alt attribute recommendations in HTML 5
On 09-Sep-07, at 8:54 PM, Hassan Schroeder wrote:
Nick Gleitzman wrote:
Language is what we have as our primary tool of communication.
There are others, of course - Rothko's paintings speak volumes
(even if the man himself lets them speak, choosing enigmatic
reservation about their meaning) - but to presume that because
someone is blind, they can't understand the content of a visual
image via a word-based description is incredibly (ahem) short-
sighted. They're blind, not brain-dead. I'd suggest the
shortcoming is not in their ability to understand an 'alt'
description, but in your ability, Bob, to write one.
Perhaps then you (or anyone adhering to this view) can supply, as
an example, a useful description of the cited Rothko? Or maybe one
of Jackson Pollock's works? ('No. 5, 1948' might be good)
And since art is often intended to prompt an emotional reaction on
the part of the audience, write that description so the audience
has an opportunity to connect emotionally with the described work
without putting your own bias into it...
I undertook a small experiment. I went to wikipedia [1], and I looked
at the description of the painting that you mentioned, with my hand
covering the image.
I then looked at the image.
Now, I will be the first to admit that I have absolutely no clue,
when it comes to 'interpreting art'. I don't 'understand' the
painting (perhaps I'm not meant to seek understanding), I don't
'emotionally connect' with it...but at the end of my two-minute long
experiment, this description:
'No. 5, 1948 is an abstract painting by Jackson Pollock (January 28,
1912 – August 11, 1956), an American painter known for his
contributions to the abstract expressionist movement. The painting
was done on a 8 x 4 feet sheet of fiberboard, with thick amounts of
brown and yellow paint drizzled on top of it, forming a nest-like
appearance',
helped me...not connect, not relate, but understand, at some, very
basic, naive, intellectual level, what the nature of the work might be.
I then perhaps read up on 'Abstract Art', and then I'm more clued in?
Finally, a an attempt to write out alt text on Jackson Pollock's No.
5, 1948:
'An abstract painting by Jackson Pollock, done on a 8 x 4 feet sheet
of fiberboard, with thick amounts of brown and yellow paint drizzled
on top of it, forming a nest-like appearance.'
So, while it _may or may not_ 'evoke an emotional response, I'd argue
that there is some amount of 'data', that we can convey, even to/for
users with visual disabilities - and exempting that data on an
arbitrary assumption seems...premature.
In apologies for posting on a topic that I know nothing of,
Best,
- Rahul.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._5,_1948
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
RE: [WSG] Investigating the proposed alt attribute recommendations in HTML 5
On Sun, September 9, 2007 4:33 pm, Michael Yeaney wrote: I find it interesting that everyone responding to this thread has failed to mention one very important aspect of any design-for-accessibility debate: Until you actually test it with a target audience/persona (i.e., someone who actually **is** blind), we're all just guessing at the relative importance of the issue at hand. Keep in mind, that some may hear the page read aloud and think 'Sheesh - enough with the graphics descriptions that keep interrupting the text flow of the page'... Mike Sorry, I thought it had been made pretty clear that you should add images and their corresponding alt-text appropriately, i.e. they should NEVER interrupt the flow of the page. To write inappropriate alt-text is wrong and is against the guidelines - which is to use alt-text to provide an alternative to essential information in images which is not provided elsewhere and to use null alt-text where they don't contain such information (unless being used as a structural element). *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Investigating the proposed alt attribute recommendations in HTML 5
Rahul Gonsalves wrote: 'An abstract painting by Jackson Pollock, done on a 8 x 4 feet sheet of fiberboard, with thick amounts of brown and yellow paint drizzled on top of it, forming a nest-like appearance.' Interesting -- I'd have never used the term nest in relation to that piece. And given that nest can be an emotionally evocative term itself, a good illustration of the problem. :-) So, while it _may or may not_ 'evoke an emotional response, I'd argue that there is some amount of 'data', that we can convey, even to/for users with visual disabilities - and exempting that data on an arbitrary assumption seems...premature. I'm not saying we shouldn't provide /some/ data, I'm saying that some people are trivializing the difficulty of creating *useful* and *relevant* alt text for complex images, especially those intended to convey *emotion* rather than simply information. And that adds nothing to the conversation. -- Hassan Schroeder - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Webtuitive Design === (+1) 408-938-0567 === http://webtuitive.com dream. code. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Investigating the proposed alt attribute recommendations in HTML 5
Michael Yeaney wrote: I find it interesting that everyone responding to this thread has failed to mention one very important aspect of any design-for-accessibility debate: Until you actually test it with a target audience/persona (i.e., someone who actually **is** blind), we're all just guessing at the relative importance of the issue at hand. We're not all just guessing - at least I'm not. My base for saying anything on the issue may be limited to national, and even regional, target-groups, but the amount of guesswork I apply is also (to the best of my ability) limited to an absolute minimum. 1: An alt-text should be short (a few words only) and to the point. Anything in addition to that should be found elsewhere, and whether that elsewhere is on the page, on the site, or somewhere else on or off the web, depends on the case at hand. 2: the importance of anything on a web page, depends entirely on the individual visitor's interests at the time of visit. Keep in mind, that some may hear the page read aloud and think 'Sheesh - enough with the graphics descriptions that keep interrupting the text flow of the page'. The speed at which some hear a page read aloud can be (what we would call) extreme, so we should indeed not interrupt the flow unnecessarily. That's why it's a good thing to silence graphics that play no role in the flow, and deliver something useful as part of the natural text flow when it _does_ play a role. And yes, I've witnessed this, and it is **very** humbling. We can read the specifications all day long and apply them in a (seemingly) 100% correct manner, and yet still totally ruin the experience for some. Yes, but the main (original) issue here is about making the 'alt attribute' itself optional _in_ a future specification. Reading, and indeed writing, specifications on how to use or not to use the 'alt attribute', only makes real sense if its existence is _recommended_, IMO. Test, test, test. Testing may run into problems with my point 2 above, as few (if any) can afford to do testing with a wide-spread enough panel to catch all. We have to make educated guesses - and choices - no matter how well we test and tailor our solutions to any group and their recommendations, so self-education and use of common sense is (at least) as important as testing. regards Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Investigating the proposed alt attribute recommendations in HTML 5
Hassan Schroeder wrote:
Nick Gleitzman wrote:
Language is what we have as our primary tool of communication. There
are others, of course - Rothko's paintings speak volumes (even if the
man himself lets them speak, choosing enigmatic reservation about
their meaning) - but to presume that because someone is blind, they
can't understand the content of a visual image via a word-based
description is incredibly (ahem) short-sighted. They're blind, not
brain-dead. I'd suggest the shortcoming is not in their ability to
understand an 'alt' description, but in your ability, Bob, to write one.
Perhaps then you (or anyone adhering to this view) can supply, as
an example, a useful description of the cited Rothko? Or maybe one
of Jackson Pollock's works? ('No. 5, 1948' might be good)
And since art is often intended to prompt an emotional reaction on
the part of the audience, write that description so the audience
has an opportunity to connect emotionally with the described work
without putting your own bias into it...
Ready, set, go! :-)
At Last! Thank you! :- )
I refuse to carry this conversation any further, as it has degenerated
into a nit-picking excercise. At least, one person has the
sense/experience to know what I'm talking about.
I notice that no-one has taken up the challenge of providing an
emotional alt tag . . . :-)
--
Bob
www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
Re: [WSG] Investigating the proposed alt attribute recommendations in HTML 5
Designer wrote: I notice that no-one has taken up the challenge of providing an emotional alt tag . . . :-) We have emoticons already, but I think they are optional... ;-) Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Investigating the proposed alt attribute recommendations in HTML 5
On 10 Sep 2007, at 1:24 AM, Hassan Schroeder wrote:
Perhaps then you (or anyone adhering to this view) can supply, as
an example, a useful description of the cited Rothko? Or maybe one
of Jackson Pollock's works? ('No. 5, 1948' might be good)
And since art is often intended to prompt an emotional reaction on
the part of the audience, write that description so the audience
has an opportunity to connect emotionally with the described work
without putting your own bias into it...
Ready, set, go! :-)
Thanks to Rahul for looking at the issue; he's saved me some time. Of
course it's possible to describe even an abstract painting. It may, as
I said, take a thousand words, or an essay, or even a whole book - but
it can be done. We have this thing called language that makes it
possible. Whether or not the description is useful is subjective.
Georg: ...the importance of anything on a web page depends entirely on
the individual visitor's interests at the time of visit.
As for your second paragraph: you miss the point. My job in describing
a painting, or a photograph, to a blind person is *not* to convey any
emotional response that I might have to the image. It's actually
imperative that I *don't* include any bias. Any emotional response
possible should be the reader's, not the writer's; I would never
presume to tell a blind person how or what to think. I reiterate:
they're blind, not brain-dead.
And:
I'm not saying we shouldn't provide /some/ data, I'm saying that
some people are trivializing the difficulty of creating *useful* and
*relevant* alt text for complex images, especially those intended to
convey *emotion* rather than simply information.
Exactly. Good alt text is not trivial, and it's not easy, when the
image/s are complex and/or conceptual. But an attitude of 'it's too
hard, leave it out' is just plain lazy.
To get back to the original topic of this thread; Georg again: ... the
main (original) issue here is about making the 'alt
attribute' itself optional _in_ a future specification. Sure, make it
optional. Then those who can't be bothered writing alt text, or lack
the skill to, don't have to. Their sites won't provide as rich an
experience for blind visitors as they might, but hey - they conform to
the spec, so they must be OK, right?
And, Bob - I refuse to carry this conversation any further, as it has
degenerated into a nit-picking excercise. At least, one person has the
sense/experience to know what I'm talking about. I notice that no-one
has taken up the challenge of providing an emotional alt tag...
Pulling out of a conversation just because people disagree with you is
a cop-out. As for for 'emotional alt tags' - don't even try. It's not
your job; see above.
N
___
omnivision. websight.
http://www.omnivision.com.au/
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
Re: Re: [WSG] Investigating the proposed alt attribute recommendations in HTML 5
Thank you for your email. I shall be away from the office between September 8th and September 17th. If your enquiry is urgent, then please call my assistant on 01749 676798 in my absence. Kind regards, Nick Roper *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: Re: Re: [WSG] Investigating the proposed alt attribute recommendations in HTML 5
Thank you for your email. I shall be away from the office between September 8th and September 17th. If your enquiry is urgent, then please call my assistant on 01749 676798 in my absence. Kind regards, Nick Roper *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Investigating the proposed alt attribute recommendations in HTML 5
Nick Gleitzman wrote: As for your second paragraph: you miss the point. No, *you* miss *my* point; I said: And since art is often intended to prompt an emotional reaction on the part of the audience, write that description so the audience has an opportunity to connect emotionally with the described work without putting your own bias into it... Note that last: *without* putting your bias into it. Of course it's possible to describe even an abstract painting. It may, as I said, take a thousand words, or an essay, or even a whole book - but it can be done. As I said, I'd like to see an example of alt text that enables a non-sighted person to connect, in *other than* the most factual way, with a pictured piece of visual art. You can get a certain amount of information from a photocopy of a grilled cheese sandwich, but it makes rather a dry meal :-) -- Hassan Schroeder - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Webtuitive Design === (+1) 408-938-0567 === http://webtuitive.com dream. code. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Investigating the proposed alt attribute recommendations in HTML 5
Hassan Schroeder wrote: You can get a certain amount of information from a photocopy of a grilled cheese sandwich, but it makes rather a dry meal :-) Absolutely. But this whole thread started with the issue of whether alt text should be optional in HTML5. A photocopy may be a poor, 2-dimensional representation of the real thing, but a blank piece of paper isn't anything at all... Which is more useful? N ___ omnivision. websight. http://www.omnivision.com.au/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Investigating the proposed alt attribute recommendations in HTML 5
Nick Gleitzman wrote: A photocopy may be a poor, 2-dimensional representation of the real thing, but a blank piece of paper isn't anything at all... Which is more useful? Depends on whether you're just curious what a sandwich looks like or you're starving, I guess -- if the latter, the answer is neither :-) -- Hassan Schroeder - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Webtuitive Design === (+1) 408-938-0567 === http://webtuitive.com dream. code. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Investigating the proposed alt attribute recommendations in HTML 5
On 31-Aug-07, at 11:08 PM, Designer wrote: Well Vlad, whether it fits your conception or not, there is such a thing as a site whose prime function is visual. The only 'information' in the site I mentioned is what something 'looks like'. If you can't see it, there is nothing you can do to help that. It's a sad fact of life I'm afraid. Bob, While not quite in direct response to your statement, I thought I'd share this article from over at A List Apart: http://alistapart.com/articles/revivinganorexicwebwriting Specifically the 'A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words' bit. I admit to having overlooked alt text. Until a year ago I sniffed at the idea of creating useful alt text for images. “If a user is blind,” I reasoned, “what does he care that I have a photograph of the university tower on my website?” My fellow designer shrugged. “Well, I guess if you don’t really care about what the image says,” she said slowly, “you really don’t need it in the first place.” Best, - Rahul. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Investigating the proposed alt attribute recommendations in HTML 5
Rahul Gonsalves wrote: On 31-Aug-07, at 11:08 PM, Designer wrote: Well Vlad, whether it fits your conception or not, there is such a thing as a site whose prime function is visual. The only 'information' in the site I mentioned is what something 'looks like'. If you can't see it, there is nothing you can do to help that. It's a sad fact of life I'm afraid. Bob, While not quite in direct response to your statement, I thought I'd share this article from over at A List Apart: http://alistapart.com/articles/revivinganorexicwebwriting Specifically the 'A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words' bit. I admit to having overlooked alt text. Until a year ago I sniffed at the idea of creating useful alt text for images. “If a user is blind,” I reasoned, “what does he care that I have a photograph of the university tower on my website?” My fellow designer shrugged. “Well, I guess if you don’t really care about what the image says,” she said slowly, “you really don’t need it in the first place.” Best, - Rahul. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Hi Rahul., Whilst interesting and quite valid, I think the article is not about stuff on web sites that are primarily visual art. What I mean is that the sort of stuff which is purely visual poetry cannot have an alt tag which adds anything other than a 'lable'. Consider (just as an example) a web site to accompany a show by Mark Rothko, with a handful of images from the show displayed on the site. Those images just cannot be appreciated by someone who cannot see them. No amount of descriptive prose will mean anything to to a blind reader. (In fact, the images lose a lot compared to their actual presence in the gallery, even for sighted viewers). In case you are unfamiliar with Rothko, you can see stuff at : http://www.nga.gov/feature/rothko/classic1.shtm. Using this arbitrary example, I still maintain that a site of images such as any of these will be of no more value to a blind user for having alt tags, other than to point out that 'there is a picture there'. Of what, the blind user has no idea because they are impossible to describe. I personally do use alt tags, every time : but I am aware of situations where they are pretty useless. -- Bob www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Investigating the proposed alt attribute recommendations in HTML 5
Designer wrote: http://www.nga.gov/feature/rothko/classic1.shtm. Using this arbitrary example, I still maintain that a site of images such as any of these will be of no more value to a blind user for having alt tags, other than to point out that 'there is a picture there'. Of what, the blind user has no idea because they are impossible to describe. You're arguing as if a site, or the web as a whole for that matter, exists in isolation. The 'label' you mention in the part I've left out, may indeed be just the cue a visitor need. More information can then either be found on the page/site, somewhere else on the web, or in the real world. By providing cues - meaningful alt text and/or otherwise - about the original, a suitable translation can often be found elsewhere by those who want one. By not providing cues, we do indeed leave visitors in the dark. ( The site you use as example, contains more than enough information alongside the image. A reference - alt attribute - to tell _which_ image that information belongs to is missing though. Several other weaknesses on that example-site btw - all regarding images. ) There are art galleries that experiment with techniques to make art - paintings or other types of art - more accessible to those who can't fully use the senses the artist aimed at. Some of these techniques are well suited for the digital world, but I don't think they have spread to the web, yet. Will something get lost in translation? Surely it will. However, that doesn't mean a blind user is necessarily left with no idea. Blind people's senses may also be developed far beyond what we - the seeing - may imagine. I do have a friend who can interpret flat images pretty well by the use of her hands. She is sensing differences in reflected temperature, instead of reflected light that most of us are limited too. That she also tends to get the use of colors more or less right, is even more surprising. Given a few more cues she gets a pretty good understanding about most pictures. This just to say: don't underestimate people's ability to appreciate something, just based on what senses they do *not* have. Alt attributes should stay - be required in HTML 5, and they should be used in a meaningful way. What's meaningful depends on the case, but if images are important parts of the content then an alt text should be provided - even if it is just a 'label'. regards Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Investigating the proposed alt attribute recommendations in HTML 5
Vlad Alexander (XStandard) wrote: I don't know what is a purely visual site. Can you please provide an example? Regards, -Vlad Hi Vlad, By that term I meant a site which has very little (if any) text. See www.kernowimages.co.uk for a (not perfect :-) example. The content of the site is visual as opposed to literal. There are a lot of such sites around. HTH, -- Bob www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Investigating the proposed alt attribute recommendations in HTML 5
Designer wrote: By that term [purely visual site] I meant a site which has very little (if any) text. Thank you for the example but I don't understand what is purely visual about this site. If the alt text for images was written correctly, a blind person using a screen reader or someone who turned image rendering off in the browser, would still get information from this site. The same would apply if 100% of the content on the site were made up of images. X/HTML is not a visual technology. So long as Web pages are written in X/HTML according to specification, there shouldn't be such a things as a purely visual site. Regards, -Vlad http://xhtml.com Original Message From: Designer Date: 2007-08-31 6:50 AM Vlad Alexander (XStandard) wrote: I don't know what is a purely visual site. Can you please provide an example? Regards, -Vlad Hi Vlad, By that term I meant a site which has very little (if any) text. See www.kernowimages.co.uk for a (not perfect :-) example. The content of the site is visual as opposed to literal. There are a lot of such sites around. HTH, *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Investigating the proposed alt attribute recommendations in HTML 5
Vlad Alexander (XStandard) wrote: Designer wrote: By that term [purely visual site] I meant a site which has very little (if any) text. Thank you for the example but I don't understand what is purely visual about this site. If the alt text for images was written correctly, a blind person using a screen reader or someone who turned image rendering off in the browser, would still get information from this site. The same would apply if 100% of the content on the site were made up of images. X/HTML is not a visual technology. So long as Web pages are written in X/HTML according to specification, there shouldn't be such a things as a purely visual site. Regards, -Vlad http://xhtml.com Well Vlad, whether it fits your conception or not, there is such a thing as a site whose prime function is visual. The only 'information' in the site I mentioned is what something 'looks like'. If you can't see it, there is nothing you can do to help that. It's a sad fact of life I'm afraid. -- Bob www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Investigating the proposed alt attribute recommendations in HTML 5
Designer wrote: [...] there is such a thing as a site whose prime function is visual. The only 'information' in the site I mentioned is what something 'looks like'. If you can't see it, there is nothing you can do to help that. Sure you can. Being unable to see something doesn't mean unable to visualize. In fact, it may be the seeing who are less able to visualize - resulting in missing cues, and missing or non-descriptive alt-attributes, for the non-seeing to visualize on. I'm deliberately not focusing on blind people, because they are just part of the group that for one reason or another is unable to see what's presented on a web site. To me it is especially important to provide non-visual cues when a site's prime function is visual - not necessarily so when the visual side of a site is less important. regards Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
[WSG] Investigating the proposed alt attribute recommendations in HTML 5
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? Investigating the proposed alt attribute recommendations in HTML 5 - http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/articles/altinhtml5.html -- with regards Steve Faulkner Technical Director - TPG Europe Director - Web Accessibility Tools Consortium www.paciellogroup.com | www.wat-c.org Web Accessibility Toolbar - http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Investigating the proposed alt attribute recommendations in HTML 5
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? Investigating the proposed alt attribute recommendations in HTML 5 - http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/articles/altinhtml5.html Omitting the alt attribute as a requirement may have a level of appropriateness for sites like flickr (as it currently stands) but flickr should be doing more to encourage their contributors to write a bit more of a story about their images - the extra information would be useful to not only the visually impaired. The inclusion of the alt attribute as a requirement has improved developer awareness of accessibility - we all work with images. The alt attribute as a requirement has played, and should continue to play, an important role in accessibility. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Investigating the proposed alt attribute recommendations in HTML 5
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 users of assistive technology such as screen readers? Investigating the proposed alt attribute recommendations in HTML 5 - http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/articles/altinhtml5.html Omitting the alt attribute as a requirement may have a level of appropriateness for sites like flickr (as it currently stands) but flickr should be doing more to encourage their contributors to write a bit more of a story about their images - the extra information would be useful to not only the visually impaired. As a default, surely programmes like Flickr and Photobucket can define a null alt () for images? I'm really disappointed the HTML 5 spec is moving in this direction. It seems like the only real benefit here is that it might make validation a little easier on sloppy code. Lisa *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Investigating the proposed alt attribute recommendations in HTML 5
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: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Investigating the proposed alt attribute recommendations in HTML 5
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 probably not apply anymore, and because of WCAG 2's tech agnostic approach in the normative document it wouldn't be a problem (it would only require a new techniques document for HTML5). P Patrick H. Lauke Web Editor / University of Salford http://www.salford.ac.uk Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Investigating the proposed alt attribute recommendations in HTML 5
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 for convenience. As often happens, convenience for one group of people causes inconvenience for another group of people. Regards, -Vlad http://xhtml.com Original Message From: Brad Pollard Date: 2007-08-30 6:28 AM 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? Investigating the proposed alt attribute recommendations in HTML 5 - http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/articles/altinhtml5.html Omitting the alt attribute as a requirement may have a level of appropriateness for sites like flickr (as it currently stands) but flickr should be doing more to encourage their contributors to write a bit more of a story about their images - the extra information would be useful to not only the visually impaired. The inclusion of the alt attribute as a requirement has improved developer awareness of accessibility - we all work with images. The alt attribute as a requirement has played, and should continue to play, an important role in accessibility. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
[WSG] Investigating the proposed alt attribute recommendations in HTML 5
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, but direct coordination with other WAI groups, such as Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group and User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Working Group, will also be done when appropriate. http://www.w3.org/2007/03/HTML-WG-charter.html#wai On 30/08/2007, Alastair Campbell [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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? -Alastair *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- with regards Steve Faulkner Technical Director - TPG Europe Director - Web Accessibility Tools Consortium www.paciellogroup.com | www.wat-c.org Web Accessibility Toolbar - http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html -- with regards Steve Faulkner Technical Director - TPG Europe Director - Web Accessibility Tools Consortium www.paciellogroup.com | www.wat-c.org Web Accessibility Toolbar - http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Investigating the proposed alt attribute recommendations in HTML 5
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 alternative method to replace the alt attribute, but they are sites that are controlled by the users, just like myspace, so making sure everyone follows their guidelines is going to be very difficult. I think the WG made the right move. No alt tag is better then an empty one. On 8/30/07, Steven Faulkner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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, but direct coordination with other WAI groups, such as Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group and User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Working Group, will also be done when appropriate. http://www.w3.org/2007/03/HTML-WG-charter.html#wai On 30/08/2007, Alastair Campbell [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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? -Alastair *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- with regards Steve Faulkner Technical Director - TPG Europe Director - Web Accessibility Tools Consortium www.paciellogroup.com | www.wat-c.org Web Accessibility Toolbar - http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html -- with regards Steve Faulkner Technical Director - TPG Europe Director - Web Accessibility Tools Consortium www.paciellogroup.com | www.wat-c.org Web Accessibility Toolbar - http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Investigating the proposed alt attribute recommendations in HTML 5
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 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 alternative method to replace the alt attribute, but they are sites that are controlled by the users, just like myspace, so making sure everyone follows their guidelines is going to be very difficult. I think the WG made the right move. No alt tag is better then an empty one. On 8/30/07, Steven Faulkner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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, but direct coordination with other WAI groups, such as Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group and User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Working Group, will also be done when appropriate. http://www.w3.org/2007/03/HTML-WG-charter.html#wai On 30/08/2007, Alastair Campbell [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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? -Alastair *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- with regards Steve Faulkner Technical Director - TPG Europe Director - Web Accessibility Tools Consortium www.paciellogroup.com | www.wat-c.org Web Accessibility Toolbar - http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html -- with regards Steve Faulkner Technical Director - TPG Europe Director - Web Accessibility Tools Consortium www.paciellogroup.com | www.wat-c.org Web Accessibility Toolbar - http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Investigating the proposed alt attribute recommendations in HTML 5
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 like Flickr certainly should allow users to provide alternate text for their images, 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? Whatever the solution(s), there are various different scenarios that should be addressed. (Note that in all of these scenarios, the authoring tools should allow the author to specify alt text. This is just about what to do when the author doesn't.) What should an authoring tool (like Dreamweaver) insert by default when a user adds an image and immediately dismisses the alt text prompt? (It currently omits the attribute unless the user explicitly selects empty or types in some text.) What should wikipedia use by default for images used in articles? (It currently redundantly repeats the image caption in both the alt and title attributes) What should sites like Flickr, Photobucket, Facebook, MySpace, etc. generate and insert? What should forums (e.g. phpBB) or blogs (e.g. Blogger) use? What should an email application insert when a user emails an image to a friend? -- Lachlan Hunt http://lachy.id.au/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Investigating the proposed alt attribute recommendations in HTML 5
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 do things well, how you can do them badly. The role of the spec is to state what is the correct behavior - that is all. Lachlan wrote: What should an authoring tool (like Dreamweaver) insert by default when a user adds an image and immediately dismisses the alt text prompt? As a WYSIWYG editor vendor, I can tell you what we do. We prompt the user to identify if the image is Decorative or not. So the user makes the decision. If the user says the image is not decorative, they MUST submit an alt text before the image can be saved. Here are the details of what we do: http://xstandard.com/en/documentation/xstandard-dev-guide/accessibility/#markup-images Lachlan wrote: What should wikipedia use by default for images used in articles? What should sites like Flickr, Photobucket, Facebook, MySpace, etc. generate and insert? What should forums (e.g. phpBB) or blogs (e.g. Blogger) use? What should an email application insert when a user emails an image to a friend? They should do what XStandard does, as explained above. Regards, -Vlad http://xstandard.com Original Message From: Lachlan Hunt Date: 2007-08-30 10:52 AM 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 like Flickr certainly should allow users to provide alternate text for their images, 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? Whatever the solution(s), there are various different scenarios that should be addressed. (Note that in all of these scenarios, the authoring tools should allow the author to specify alt text. This is just about what to do when the author doesn't.) What should an authoring tool (like Dreamweaver) insert by default when a user adds an image and immediately dismisses the alt text prompt? (It currently omits the attribute unless the user explicitly selects empty or types in some text.) What should wikipedia use by default for images used in articles? (It currently redundantly repeats the image caption in both the alt and title attributes) What should sites like Flickr, Photobucket, Facebook, MySpace, etc. generate and insert? What should forums (e.g. phpBB) or blogs (e.g. Blogger) use? What should an email application insert when a user emails an image to a friend? *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Investigating the proposed alt attribute recommendations in HTML 5
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 whatever authoring tools, software and web applications are doing right now, should continue to do the same in HTML 5. So by default they will be included unless the developer choses not to. On 8/30/07, Lachlan Hunt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 like Flickr certainly should allow users to provide alternate text for their images, 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? Whatever the solution(s), there are various different scenarios that should be addressed. (Note that in all of these scenarios, the authoring tools should allow the author to specify alt text. This is just about what to do when the author doesn't.) What should an authoring tool (like Dreamweaver) insert by default when a user adds an image and immediately dismisses the alt text prompt? (It currently omits the attribute unless the user explicitly selects empty or types in some text.) What should wikipedia use by default for images used in articles? (It currently redundantly repeats the image caption in both the alt and title attributes) What should sites like Flickr, Photobucket, Facebook, MySpace, etc. generate and insert? What should forums (e.g . phpBB) or blogs (e.g. Blogger) use? What should an email application insert when a user emails an image to a friend? -- Lachlan Hunt http://lachy.id.au/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Investigating the proposed alt attribute recommendations in HTML 5
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 inconvenience for another group of people. Regards, -Vlad http://xhtml.com Let's just keep things in perspective for a moment. 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 birthday party' would be singularly dull, I'd have thought! Surely, there ARE cases where a purely visual site can NEVER be presented 'accessibly' in any eaningful way? -- Bob www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Investigating the proposed alt attribute recommendations in HTML 5
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 birthday party' would be singularly dull, I'd have thought! On the other hand, if I'm looking at Flickr with images turned off because (a) my service provider charges me per megabyte of data that I use and (b) my connection is very very slow, then its quite useful to be able to tell if a picture is of my car or my birthday party before telling my browser to load the thumbnail. Lots of people seem to be hung up on the idea that alt text is for blind people, but there are quite a few other use cases for the attribute. -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk/ http://blog.dorward.me.uk/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Investigating the proposed alt attribute recommendations in HTML 5
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. Designer wrote: Surely, there ARE cases where a purely visual site... I don't know what is a purely visual site. Can you please provide an example? Regards, -Vlad http://xhtml.com Original Message From: Designer Date: 2007-08-30 12:51 PM 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 inconvenience for another group of people. Regards, -Vlad http://xhtml.com Let's just keep things in perspective for a moment. 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 birthday party' would be singularly dull, I'd have thought! Surely, there ARE cases where a purely visual site can NEVER be presented 'accessibly' in any eaningful way? *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Investigating the proposed alt attribute recommendations in HTML 5
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 intentional lack of text. At the moment a missing alt is generally an indicator of ignorance (not knowing or caring to add alternative). A null alt either means the author knew enough to not want to put an alternative in (e.g. decorative/spacer image), or it was automatically put in for them. What should an authoring tool (like Dreamweaver) insert by default when a user adds an image and immediately dismisses the alt text prompt? (It currently omits the attribute unless the user explicitly selects empty or types in some text.) I think that's been answered from an accessibility point of view: http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-AUTOOLS/#check-no-default-alt -Alastair *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
