This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
The spec curently contains non-machine testable normative authoring requirements for use of the alt attribute on images. There is no consensus on these requirements or indeed if they should be normative requirements rather than informative guidance. Casting them in terms of requirements provides no advantage to either the author or the end user. The rigidity of the requirements does not take into account varied use cases and what the user groups who benefit from text alternatives may want. A starting point for improving the current spec text would be to replace all normative 'must's with 'should's in the section 4.8.1.1 Requirements for providing text to act as an alternative for images http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/embedded-content-1.html#alt
(In reply to comment #0) > The spec curently contains non-machine testable normative authoring > requirements for use of the alt attribute on images. Are you implying that MUST-level requirements must be machine-testable? If so, I suggest you open a separate bug requesting the watering down of all non-machine testable MUST-level requirements, since there are lots that are not in the "alt" attribute section. For example: * "Authors must not use elements, attributes, or attribute values for purposes other than their appropriate intended semantic purpose." * "When authors use the canvas element, they must also provide content that, when presented to the user, conveys essentially the same function or purpose as the bitmap canvas." Obviously it's better if requirements are *machine* testable, but isn't whether they are testable at all the key thing? > There is no consensus on these requirements A starting point for > improving the current spec text would be to replace all > normative 'must's with 'should's in the section > 4.8.1.1 Requirements for providing text to act as an alternative for images > http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/embedded-content-1.html#al i.e. Some people think they are bad requirements. It's better to change or omit requirements rather than water down their conformance level for lack of consensus. Consider how HTML4 helped to confuse expectations around heading levels: "Some people consider skipping heading levels to be bad practice. They accept H1 H2 H1 while they do not accept H1 H3 H1 since the heading level H2 is skipped." http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/global.html#edef-H1 > or indeed if they should be normative requirements rather > than informative guidance. > Casting them in terms of requirements provides no > advantage to either the author or the end user. Making good, universally applicable requirements MUST-level sends a clear message to authors, resulting in more authors meeting those requirements, and thus benefiting end-users. > The rigidity of the requirements does not take into account varied use cases Which ones? > and what the user groups who benefit from text alternatives may want. Like? I agree that where requirements for semantic coding are not universally applicable but mostly applicable, they should be SHOULD-level requirements but I would generally prefer they be replaced by more elaborate MUST-level requirements. Can you give examples that could not be solved by changing or expanding the requirements, or expressing the requirements themselves in more general terms, rather than watering down them down from MUST to SHOULD-level? PS Are you really asking to remove the requirement to include "alt"?
EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html Status: Rejected Change Description: no spec change Rationale: Requirements don't have to be machine-checkable. Heck, most requirements aren't, including the most important accessibility ones (such as making sure you use elements according to their semantics).
This is a TF issue as it relates to ISSUE 31.
Bug triage team has agreed that this is being addressed by ISSUE 31 and should be REOPENED and ASSIGNED to Steve Faulkner. http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-html-alt-techniques-20121025/
EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the Editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the Tracker Issue; or you may create a Tracker Issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html Status: partially Accepted Change Description: kept core requirements, removed requirements from examples. Rationale: Defining the conformance requirements for provision of a text alternative in such granular terms has lead to erroneous requirements being included the specification, these did not serve users or authors well. The rigidity of the requirements did not take into account varied use cases and what the user groups who benefit from text alternatives may want.