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
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
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**
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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:
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
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
46 matches
Mail list logo
