[whatwg] ALT and equivalent representation
shannon at arc.net.au
Sun Apr 20 18:18:29 PDT 2008
What about this as a possible solution?
> <img src="part1.png" altgroup="rating">
> <img src="part2.png" altgroup="rating">
> <img src="part3.png" altgroup="rating">
> <altgroup id="rating" value="3/5">
> I don't think this would raise any serious implementation issues as the
> logic is quite simple;
Bill Mason wrote:
> I think it would be more logical for the specification to support the
> common, existing, reasonable authoring practices than go through the
> expense of introducing both a new attribute and a new element.
Yes this proposal requires a new tag and attribute but that is a lot
less disruptive than giving designers an easy way to opt out of
accessibility (while still claiming compliance). I'd like to believe
that designers would do the right thing without being told but I know
for a fact most of them don't. The alt requirement for w3c validation is
what got me using them in the first place so I know it's having some effect.
> What advantage does it have over Simon's proposal?
> Simon's suggestion has the obvious advantage that it already works with
> current browsers.
Simon's suggestion is no different from the original proposal, the idea
that alt can be optional on some images. I've already explained why I
consider that a dangerous step backwards from an accessible web.
Fallback for current browsers is something I overlooked but it is easy
<altgroup id="hippo" value="Hippopotamus">
<img src="hippo_head.png" altgroup="hippo" alt="Hippopotamus"><img
With the alt simply being overridden by altgroup in a HTML5 browser.
More information about the whatwg