W3C

Site Navigation

Nearby

Results of Questionnaire Resources on Alternative Text for Images - change redirected link

The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody. In addition, answers are sent to the following email address: shawn@w3.org

This questionnaire was open from 2021-01-19 to 2021-01-28.

15 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

  1. Survey topic and your position
  2. Option 1. Delete the link and paragraph under it
  3. Option 2. Change the link to this W3C doc
  4. Option 3. Change the link to a different doc
  5. Option 4. Leave the link pointing to the WHATWG page

1. Survey topic and your position

summary | by responder | by choice

Resources on Alternative Text for Images was created as a vetted resource to point to.
(I cannot remember where this page is pointed to from. If important, I can spend more time researching that. ~Shawn)

The target of one of the links changed by redirect. It previously pointed to a draft page on the W3C website. It now redirects to a page on a different website (WHATWG). We probably want to update that link, per Steve Faulkner's e-mail:

The last link "HTML5 - 4.7.1.1 Requirements for providing text to act as an alternative for images" originally linked to the W3C draft HTML5 specification alt advice (for which we had consensus on), but now redirects to the WHATWG alt advice (which does not represent consensus advice for use of alt).

This survey include options for addressing the redirected link.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
I'll provide input in this survey, and accept the decision of the Groups. 7
I'll provide input in this survey. If the Groups prefer to do different from my suggestions in this survey, I want to comment before the decision is finalized. 1
I abstain from this survey and accept the decision of the Groups. 4

(3 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Skip to view by choice.

View by responder

Details

Responder Survey topic and your positionComments
Brent Bakken
  • I'll provide input in this survey, and accept the decision of the Groups.
Shadi Abou-Zahra
  • I'll provide input in this survey. If the Groups prefer to do different from my suggestions in this survey, I want to comment before the decision is finalized.
 I don't have enough background and context but it seems to me that a combination of actions could be useful:

#1. Update the current link from the CR version of HTML5 to the latest, as Steve suggests (Option 2)
#2. Add a link to the WHAT WG version, since it is commonly implemented (Option 4)
#3. Maybe also add a link to Accessible Name Computation (https://www.w3.org/TR/accname-1.1/), which is usually also relevant in this context (Option 3)
Melanie Philipp
  • I abstain from this survey and accept the decision of the Groups.
Hidde de Vries
  • I'll provide input in this survey, and accept the decision of the Groups.
Karen Herr
  • I'll provide input in this survey, and accept the decision of the Groups.
Kevin White
Laura Carlson
  • I'll provide input in this survey, and accept the decision of the Groups.
Shawn Lawton Henry
  • I abstain from this survey and accept the decision of the Groups.
Mark Palmer
  • I'll provide input in this survey, and accept the decision of the Groups.
Laura Keen
  • I'll provide input in this survey, and accept the decision of the Groups.
Kris Anne Kinney
Vicki Menezes Miller
  • I abstain from this survey and accept the decision of the Groups.
Sylvie Duchateau
  • I abstain from this survey and accept the decision of the Groups.
Daniel Montalvo
Howard Kramer
  • I'll provide input in this survey, and accept the decision of the Groups.

View by choice

ChoiceResponders
I'll provide input in this survey, and accept the decision of the Groups.
  • Brent Bakken
  • Hidde de Vries
  • Karen Herr
  • Laura Carlson
  • Mark Palmer
  • Laura Keen
  • Howard Kramer
I'll provide input in this survey. If the Groups prefer to do different from my suggestions in this survey, I want to comment before the decision is finalized.
  • Shadi Abou-Zahra
I abstain from this survey and accept the decision of the Groups.
  • Melanie Philipp
  • Shawn Lawton Henry
  • Vicki Menezes Miller
  • Sylvie Duchateau

2. Option 1. Delete the link and paragraph under it

summary | by responder | by choice

This option is to delete it and not replace it.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Yes — I strongly support deleting it. 3
OK — I mildly support deleting it. 1
Neutral
Na — I mildly support not deleting it. 5
No. — I strongly support not deleting it. 2

(4 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Skip to view by choice.

View by responder

Details

Responder Option 1. Delete the link and paragraph under itRationale
Brent Bakken
  • Na — I mildly support not deleting it.
Shadi Abou-Zahra
  • Yes — I strongly support deleting it.
  • No. — I strongly support not deleting it.
 Essentially this is outdated and needs to be changed (see below for more).
Melanie Philipp
Hidde de Vries
  • Na — I mildly support not deleting it.
 The info in the HTML spec is useful and adds to the other links.
Karen Herr If we don't change the link, we should delete the link and paragraph.
Kevin White
  • Yes — I strongly support deleting it.
 It isn't really adding anything and the alternative doesn't add that much either.
Laura Carlson
  • Na — I mildly support not deleting it.
Shawn Lawton Henry
Mark Palmer
  • Na — I mildly support not deleting it.
Laura Keen
  • No. — I strongly support not deleting it.
Kris Anne Kinney
  • Yes — I strongly support deleting it.
 Prefer to link to resources that are available within W3C guidance. I've never even heard of the site that this link redirects to. (not saying much as I'm not a developer but still, I've never heard it being used or referenced before by anyone.)
Vicki Menezes Miller
Sylvie Duchateau
Daniel Montalvo
  • OK — I mildly support deleting it.
 Given that there seems to be no consensus on pointing to the WhatWG spec, but the rest of this page we still have consensus on, I think removing this for now could work. Another important thing (editor's hat on) is when we want to point to the specs, where should we be pointing to?
Howard Kramer
  • Na — I mildly support not deleting it.
 The information it provides seems useful. But understand if you don't want to point to an non-wai page.

View by choice

ChoiceResponders
Yes — I strongly support deleting it.
  • Shadi Abou-Zahra
  • Kevin White
  • Kris Anne Kinney
OK — I mildly support deleting it.
  • Daniel Montalvo
Neutral
Na — I mildly support not deleting it.
  • Brent Bakken
  • Hidde de Vries
  • Laura Carlson
  • Mark Palmer
  • Howard Kramer
No. — I strongly support not deleting it.
  • Shadi Abou-Zahra
  • Laura Keen

3. Option 2. Change the link to this W3C doc

summary | by responder | by choice

Change the link to this W3C specification link: https://www.w3.org/TR/html51/semantics-embedded-content.html#alt-text

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Yes — I strongly support changing it to this link. 6
OK — I mildly support changing it to this link. 3
Neutral
Na — I mildly do not support changing it to this link. 1
No. — I strongly do not support changing it to this link. 1

(4 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Skip to view by choice.

View by responder

Details

Responder Option 2. Change the link to this W3C docRationale
Brent Bakken
  • Yes — I strongly support changing it to this link.
Shadi Abou-Zahra
  • Yes — I strongly support changing it to this link.
 With better clarification that this is the W3C version.
Melanie Philipp
Hidde de Vries
  • No. — I strongly do not support changing it to this link.
 This would reinforce the notion of multiple HTML specs, which I have seen confuse developers a lot.
Karen Herr
  • Yes — I strongly support changing it to this link.
Kevin White
  • OK — I mildly support changing it to this link.
 Some useful information, although the Tutorials and Understanding give much more practical information
Laura Carlson
  • Yes — I strongly support changing it to this link.
Shawn Lawton Henry
Mark Palmer
  • OK — I mildly support changing it to this link.
 My feeling would be that if we have concensus on this document then for the time being at least we could point to this.
Laura Keen
  • Yes — I strongly support changing it to this link.
Kris Anne Kinney
  • Yes — I strongly support changing it to this link.
Vicki Menezes Miller
Sylvie Duchateau
Daniel Montalvo
  • OK — I mildly support changing it to this link.
Howard Kramer
  • Na — I mildly do not support changing it to this link.
 The other page seems more straightforward about the alt attribute.

View by choice

ChoiceResponders
Yes — I strongly support changing it to this link.
  • Brent Bakken
  • Shadi Abou-Zahra
  • Karen Herr
  • Laura Carlson
  • Laura Keen
  • Kris Anne Kinney
OK — I mildly support changing it to this link.
  • Kevin White
  • Mark Palmer
  • Daniel Montalvo
Neutral
Na — I mildly do not support changing it to this link.
  • Howard Kramer
No. — I strongly do not support changing it to this link.
  • Hidde de Vries

4. Option 3. Change the link to a different doc

summary | by responder | by choice

Use this question if you suggest that the link be changed to a different document location:

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
I strongly support changing it to the link in the Rationale below:
I mildly support changing it to the link in the Rationale below: 1
Neutral — I'm just sharing another idea for a replacement link, not even particularly suggesting it

(14 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Skip to view by choice.

View by responder

Details

Responder Option 3. Change the link to a different docRationale
Brent Bakken
Shadi Abou-Zahra
  • I mildly support changing it to the link in the Rationale below:
 [medium] Not change but *add* a link with appropriate description to Accessible Name Computation (https://www.w3.org/TR/accname-1.1/), which is usually also relevant in this context.
Melanie Philipp
Hidde de Vries
Karen Herr
Kevin White
Laura Carlson
Shawn Lawton Henry
Mark Palmer
Laura Keen
Kris Anne Kinney I have nothing to add as a different resource to link to.
Vicki Menezes Miller
Sylvie Duchateau
Daniel Montalvo
Howard Kramer

View by choice

ChoiceResponders
I strongly support changing it to the link in the Rationale below:
I mildly support changing it to the link in the Rationale below:
  • Shadi Abou-Zahra
Neutral — I'm just sharing another idea for a replacement link, not even particularly suggesting it

5. Option 4. Leave the link pointing to the WHATWG page

summary | by responder | by choice

This option is to change the link to go directly to the WHATWG page that it now redirects to.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Yes — I strongly support leaving the link pointing to the WHATWG page. 2
OK — I mildly support leaving the link pointing to the WHATWG page. 1
Neutral
Na — I mildly do not support leaving the link pointing to the WHATWG page. 1
No. — I strongly do not support leaving the link pointing to the WHATWG page. 5

(6 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Skip to view by choice.

View by responder

Details

Responder Option 4. Leave the link pointing to the WHATWG pageRationale
Brent Bakken
  • No. — I strongly do not support leaving the link pointing to the WHATWG page.
Shadi Abou-Zahra
  • Yes — I strongly support leaving the link pointing to the WHATWG page.
 With changes to the description, to clarify that this is the WHAT WG version.
Melanie Philipp
Hidde de Vries
  • Yes — I strongly support leaving the link pointing to the WHATWG page.
Karen Herr
  • No. — I strongly do not support leaving the link pointing to the WHATWG page.
 We do not control the content of that page.
Kevin White
  • No. — I strongly do not support leaving the link pointing to the WHATWG page.
 The target page doesn't have anything coherent about authoring of useful alt attribute content.
Laura Carlson
  • No. — I strongly do not support leaving the link pointing to the WHATWG page.
Shawn Lawton Henry
Mark Palmer
Laura Keen
  • No. — I strongly do not support leaving the link pointing to the WHATWG page.
Kris Anne Kinney
  • Na — I mildly do not support leaving the link pointing to the WHATWG page.
 Who is responsible for that page? Who verifies that the guidance is correct? Again, just have never heard of it before.
Vicki Menezes Miller
Sylvie Duchateau
Daniel Montalvo
Howard Kramer
  • OK — I mildly support leaving the link pointing to the WHATWG page.

View by choice

ChoiceResponders
Yes — I strongly support leaving the link pointing to the WHATWG page.
  • Shadi Abou-Zahra
  • Hidde de Vries
OK — I mildly support leaving the link pointing to the WHATWG page.
  • Howard Kramer
Neutral
Na — I mildly do not support leaving the link pointing to the WHATWG page.
  • Kris Anne Kinney
No. — I strongly do not support leaving the link pointing to the WHATWG page.
  • Brent Bakken
  • Karen Herr
  • Kevin White
  • Laura Carlson
  • Laura Keen

More details on responses

  • Brent Bakken: last responded on 22, January 2021 at 17:58 (UTC)
  • Shadi Abou-Zahra: last responded on 23, January 2021 at 18:42 (UTC)
  • Melanie Philipp: last responded on 25, January 2021 at 18:06 (UTC)
  • Hidde de Vries: last responded on 25, January 2021 at 20:37 (UTC)
  • Karen Herr: last responded on 25, January 2021 at 22:25 (UTC)
  • Kevin White: last responded on 26, January 2021 at 13:32 (UTC)
  • Laura Carlson: last responded on 26, January 2021 at 14:43 (UTC)
  • Shawn Lawton Henry: last responded on 28, January 2021 at 14:47 (UTC)
  • Mark Palmer: last responded on 28, January 2021 at 14:48 (UTC)
  • Laura Keen: last responded on 28, January 2021 at 14:53 (UTC)
  • Kris Anne Kinney: last responded on 28, January 2021 at 14:54 (UTC)
  • Vicki Menezes Miller: last responded on 28, January 2021 at 16:33 (UTC)
  • Sylvie Duchateau: last responded on 28, January 2021 at 16:52 (UTC)
  • Daniel Montalvo: last responded on 28, January 2021 at 17:45 (UTC)
  • Howard Kramer: last responded on 29, January 2021 at 04:00 (UTC)

Compact view of the results / list of email addresses of the responders

WBS home / Questionnaires / WG questionnaires / Answer this questionnaire

Report issues on GitHub project w3c/wbs-design or by mail to sysreq.