On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 10:00:52 +0200, Steven Faulkner
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As for finding it necessary, I do think that would be one of the
reasons.
Say you have 300 photos and you want to share them online as quickly as
possible and you want to pass machine checkable validation. What to do?
(Consider that most authors will take the easiest option and that the
easiest option might be bad for accessibility if alt= is mandated, etc.)
I wonder at what level does it stop? If I have 100 or 50 0r 10 photos
that i want to share, is it OK then to not include the alt attribute?
Then if its OK for 10 why not 1.
I would expect people who care enough to do it most of the time and people
who don't to never get it right. As I mentioned in my post, I'm not really
looking for a solution into the content producers side as it doesn't seem
the solution will be coming from there.
both options are bad for accessibility (either no alt attribute for any
image or alt="" on an image that contains information not provided
elsewhere in associated text content).
The HTML5 draft does not allow no alt attribute for any image. It's
actually a MUST level requirement to provide it for most and a SHOULD for
images with critical content.
I'm not sure what other meaning the _user agent_ can extract from alt=""
than simply acting as if it was not there.
This is the same as what AT UA's do for no alt attribute under most
circumstances. As no useful info can be provided to the user unless
someone has provided that info in the first place.
This was in reply by the way to your comment on what alt="" means. My
comment on that was that for the user agent it doesn't matter, and my post
talked about the user agent.
Regarding no alt= attribute, that indeed seems to be case. Which is why we
might want to try something else instead. On the other hand, going out
from the current state of the art of screen readers doesn't really help
solving this problem I think. Dunno really.
--
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
