This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 26232 - alt requirements don't seem to cover the first example here
Summary: alt requirements don't seem to cover the first example here
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: WHATWG
Classification: Unclassified
Component: HTML (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: Other other
: P3 normal
Target Milestone: Unsorted
Assignee: Ian 'Hixie' Hickson
QA Contact: contributor
URL: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/...
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2014-06-29 09:57 UTC by contributor
Modified: 2014-09-18 23:02 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

See Also:


Attachments

Description contributor 2014-06-29 09:57:46 UTC
Specification: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/edits.html
Multipage: http://www.whatwg.org/C#introduction-0
Complete: http://www.whatwg.org/c#introduction-0
Referrer: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/

Comment:
alt requirements don't seem to cover the first example here

I think it's not quite "A purely decorative image that doesn't add any
information" (it adds information about what she looked like, at least, but
I'm not sure it is reasonable to put that as alt text)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page for the intended context.

Also see
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26160
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/embedded-content.html#images-that
-enhance-the-themes-or-subject-matter-of-the-page-content

Posted from: 90.230.218.37 by simonp@opera.com
User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_9_3) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/35.0.1916.114 Safari/537.36 OPR/22.0.1471.40 (Edition Next)
Comment 1 Ian 'Hixie' Hickson 2014-09-03 18:14:55 UTC
Where exactly is "here" in this context? Can you elaborate on the case to which you are referring? Do you mean the "Lady of Shalott" example?
Comment 2 Simon Pieters 2014-09-04 15:09:25 UTC
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/embedded-content.html#introduction-3

<h2>From today's featured article</h2>
<img src="/uploads/100-marie-lloyd.jpg" alt="" width="100" height="150">
<p><b><a href="/wiki/Marie_Lloyd">Marie Lloyd</a></b> (1870–1922)
was an English <a href="/wiki/Music_hall">music hall</a> singer, ...
Comment 3 Ian 'Hixie' Hickson 2014-09-04 18:27:06 UTC
If I were to read that article over the phone to someone, I don't think I'd mention the picture. Would you? What would you say?
Comment 4 Simon Pieters 2014-09-05 08:36:59 UTC
No, I wouldn't. So that matches the general guidelines, but I can't find a subsection of http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/embedded-content.html#alt that supports that conclusion.

It's not "A graphical representation of some of the surrounding text".

It's not "A purely decorative image that doesn't add any information".

It's not "A group of images that form a single larger picture with no links".

It's not "An image not intended for the user".

It could be something like "An image that doesn't add any information worth mentioning if you were reading the page to someone over the phone" or some such but that doesn't exist in the spec.
Comment 5 Ian 'Hixie' Hickson 2014-09-05 17:05:32 UTC
Ah, fair enough. I think "A graphical representation of some of the surrounding text" and "A purely decorative image that doesn't add any information" are what I was meaning to have cover this (it's kind of in-between), but I can add a new section that tries to more explicitly cover this case.
Comment 6 contributor 2014-09-18 23:02:28 UTC
Checked in as WHATWG revision r8789.
Check-in comment: Suggested alternative text for anciliary images.
https://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=8788&to=8789