On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Maciej Stachowiak <m...@apple.com> wrote: > > On Aug 1, 2012, at 12:56 AM, Ian Hickson <i...@hixie.ch> wrote: > >> >> We briefly brainstormed some ideas on #whatwg earlier tonight, and one >> name in particular that I think could work is the absurdly long >> >> <img src="..." generator-unable-to-provide-required-alt=""> >> >> This has several key characteristics that I think are good: >> >> - it's long, so people aren't going to want to type it out >> - it's long, so it will stick out in copy-and-paste scenarios >> - it's emminently searchable (long unique term) and so will likely lead >> to good documentation if it's adopted >> - the "generator" part implies that it's for use by generators, and may >> discourage authors from using it >> - the "unable" and "required" parts make it obvious that using this >> attribute is an act of last resort > > Here's a review of other proposed names and a few new ideas: > > noalt > Pro: brief > Con: not very explanatory, so perhaps more likely to be misused > > relaxed [suggested by Ted] > Pro: correctly conveys "relaxed validation" > Con: not clear what is relaxed or why > > incomplete [suggested by Laura] > Pro: correctly conveys that a non-decorative content image is incomplete > without a textual equivalent > Con: not clear what is incomplete or why > > unknown > Pro: correctly conveys the reason for omitting alt, i.e. that the name is > unknown to the generator > Con: might not be clear that it is not for human authors > > unknown-to-generator > Pro: correctly conveys intended generator use > Con: not totally clear what it is that is unknown > > I don't have a strong opinion, but I think > generator-unable-to-provide-required-alt might be long to the point of > silliness.
I'd think it should at least mention "alt". Shorter would e.g. be "unable-to-provide-alt". Names are difficult to get right. ;-) Cheers, Silvia.