w3c/wbs-design or
by mail to sysreq.
W3C
Site Navigation
Nearby
Results of Questionnaire ISSUE-31/80: What text should be used for the img element definition - Straw Poll for Objections
The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody.
This questionnaire was open from 2011-03-29 to 2011-04-05.
5 answers have been received.
Jump to results for question:
- Objections to Change Proposal 1
- Objections to Change Proposal 5
- Objections to Change Proposal 6
- Objections to Change Proposal 7
1. Objections to Change Proposal 1
We have a Change Proposal that proposes the following specific text for the first two paragraphs of the img element definition. If you have strong objections to this Change Proposal then please state your objections below.
An img element represents an image.
The image given by the src attribute is the embedded content, and the value of the alt attribute is the img element's fallback content.
Keep in mind, you must actually state an objection, not merely cite someone else. If you feel that your objection has already been adequately addressed by someone else, then it is not necessary to repeat it.
Details
| Responder | Objections to Change Proposal 1 |
|---|---|
| Ian Hickson | |
| John Foliot | I object to this change Proposal on the grounds that the Accessibility Task Force had already discussed this issue, and Change Proposal #7 (http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/first_2_paragraphs_of_definition_of_img#Details) most accurately reflects the consensus decision of that group. Further, the value of the alt attribute is not "fallback" (2nd class) content, but rather a textual equivalent. |
| David Singer | |
| Laura Carlson | It is important to pay attention to the sea of words in the spec. What pictures do they paint? What boundaries do they draw? What possibilities do they kill? I object to the verbiage in this definition. It is incorrect. The value of the alt attribute is not "fallback" content. For some users it is primary content. Content in the src and alt attribute are of equal importance. [1] Vlad Alexander has further articulated this clearly, provided additional rationale, and stated ramifications [2]. QUOTE: The HTML5 spec defines the <img> element as an element that "represents an image". The spec then defines alternative text (textual content) as "fallback content". What's wrong with this? These definitions suggest that the visual content (the image) is more important than the textual content. As a result, to many people, if the primary purpose of embedding an image is achieved, the secondary or fallback purpose (textual content) can be skipped or given cursory effort. The principle behind this definition is already in practice in a publicly available HTML reference... The <img> element's visual content and its textual content are equivalent in meaning and should therefore be of equal importance. How elements are defined in the specification influences tool vendors, educators and ultimately Web site creators, so that clearly defining the correct use of HTML elements can over time improve the use of HTML. UNQUOTE I agree. HTML 4 does not lower alt to "fallback" status. HTML5 should not degenerate alt either. Words matter. [3] They have implications. Eliminate the word "fallback" from img definition. References: [1] http://tinyurl.com/3bk69kn [2] http://rebuildingtheweb.com/en/correct-img-element-definition/ [3] http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2010-09-10/why-words-matter "It is language that provides the key tool for communicating prejudice interpersonally and cross-generationally." - Mass, A and Arcuri, L., *Language and Stereotyping* in Stereotypes and Stereotyping, Macrae et all, eds. 1996, New York: Guilford, p 193. |
| Henri Sivonen | I object to this wording, because the word "fallback" is used for a purpose that is radically different from the use of the word in the context of other elements where "fallback" is for old browsers. |
2. Objections to Change Proposal 5
We have a Change Proposal that proposes the following specific text for the first two paragraphs of the img element definition. If you have strong objections to this Change Proposal then please state your objections below.
An img element represents an image.
The image given by the src attribute is the embedded content, and the value of the alt attribute is text content that is rendered when the image is not displayed by a User Agent.
Keep in mind, you must actually state an objection, not merely cite someone else. If you feel that your objection has already been adequately addressed by someone else, then it is not necessary to repeat it.
Details
| Responder | Objections to Change Proposal 5 |
|---|---|
| Ian Hickson | I object to this on the grounds that it is wrong. For example, an orphan HTMLImageElement node with an alt attribute has neither the image nor the text displayed. Similarly, the alt="" attribute's contents might not be textual, for example it could be the empty string or Unicode symbols. |
| John Foliot | I object to this change Proposal on the grounds that the Accessibility Task Force had already discussed this issue, and Change Proposal #7 (http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/first_2_paragraphs_of_definition_of_img#Details) most accurately reflects the consensus decision of that group. I note however that the change in language in this proposal is minor to that of Proposal #7, and so my 'objection' is in lieu of my ability to actively indicate support Proposal #7 as my preferred choice specification language. |
| David Singer | User agents may be displaying the image, but the user may not be able to see it properly; providing the alt text should not be linked to whether or not the image is displayed, but on whether the alt text is needed or desired. |
| Laura Carlson | |
| Henri Sivonen | I object to this wording, because a user agent can be displaying an image at the same time as the text alternative is presented through assistive technology. |
3. Objections to Change Proposal 6
We have a Change Proposal that proposes the following specific text for the first two paragraphs of the img element definition. If you have strong objections to this Change Proposal then please state your objections below.
The <img> element represents content that can be rendered visually (as an image) and textually.
The src attribute provides visual content in the form of an image and the alt attribute provides textual content. The content in the src and alt attributes must convey equivalent meaning.
Keep in mind, you must actually state an objection, not merely cite someone else. If you feel that your objection has already been adequately addressed by someone else, then it is not necessary to repeat it.
Details
| Responder | Objections to Change Proposal 6 |
|---|---|
| Ian Hickson | I object to this on the grounds that it applies requirements on the alt="" attribute despite the fact that two paragraphs later the spec claims that such requirements are in a separate section, which itself then gives a requirement that is equivalent to the one proposed here but is more accurate and detailed. I also object to this on the grounds that it is wrong. The src attribute does not provide visual content; it provides a URL that references a resource that provides image content. Similarly, the alt="" attribute's contents might not be textual, for example it could be the empty string or Unicode symbols. |
| John Foliot | I object to this change Proposal as it is inaccurate in it's description of the <img> element, while at the same time noting that the first line of the second sentence: "The src attribute provides visual content in the form of an image and the alt attribute provides textual content." is factually correct. My 'objection' is in lieu of my ability to actively indicate support Proposal #7 as my preferred choice for specification language. |
| David Singer | A 'must' requirement should be a testable condition, and "convey equivalent meaning" is not testable. Nor is it achievable; there is no 'text' that can substitute for, for example, 'Rain, steam, and speed'. Saying that an image ... can be rendered ... textually, is nonsense; we should not write such text into a specification, as it casts doubt on the quality of the specification as a whole. |
| Laura Carlson | |
| Henri Sivonen | I object to this wording, because it restricts the <img> elements to use with visual renderings for which equivalent textual representations exist and it seems likely that there are useful visual renderings for which this isn't the case. |
4. Objections to Change Proposal 7
We have a Change Proposal that proposes the following specific text for the first two paragraphs of the img element definition. If you have strong objections to this Change Proposal then please state your objections below.
An img element represents an image.
The image given by the src attribute is the embedded content; the value of the alt attribute provides equivalent content for those who cannot process images or who have image loading disabled.
Keep in mind, you must actually state an objection, not merely cite someone else. If you feel that your objection has already been adequately addressed by someone else, then it is not necessary to repeat it.
Details
| Responder | Objections to Change Proposal 7 |
|---|---|
| Ian Hickson | I object to this on the grounds that it is incomplete. There are a number of people who might benefit from alt="" attribute content who _can_ process images or who have images enabled. For example, the alt="" attribute can be used before the image has loaded, it can be used if the image format is unsupported, it can be used when the image is too large for the system to support it, it can be used in copy-and-paste in the textual clipboard format, it can be used by scripts, etc. |
| John Foliot | |
| David Singer | |
| Laura Carlson | |
| Henri Sivonen |
More details on responses
- Ian Hickson: last responded on 29, March 2011 at 21:26 (UTC)
- John Foliot: last responded on 30, March 2011 at 01:24 (UTC)
- David Singer: last responded on 30, March 2011 at 15:40 (UTC)
- Laura Carlson: last responded on 2, April 2011 at 11:50 (UTC)
- Henri Sivonen: last responded on 5, April 2011 at 11:38 (UTC)
Everybody has responded to this questionnaire.
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