LONGDESC files

[Brian]

Re: LONGDESC files

Harlan Messinger wrote:[color=blue]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> I'm referring to "Photo of a bull in the water canoeing" and
>>> "MIT/LCSINRIAKeioDAR PACEC".[/color][/color]
>
> User agents are supposed to use tags to provide users with the cues
> they need to understand the content of the page. How would one rate
> a browser that reads a properly constructed HTML list with no cues
> indicating that all the items constitute a list rather than one
> drawn-out sentence?[/color]

As a deficient browser. A ua should indicate to the user that it is a
list. UL means, semantically, here is an unordered list. But IMG
does not, by itself, convey semantic meaning. The content of the
image does that. How can a ua determine the meaning of the content of
a jpeg image by itself? It cannot, of course. It is left to the
author, who is in the best position to provide the meaning for
situations where images are not rendered.
[color=blue]
> How would one rate a visual browser, whether graphical or
> text-based, that deleted all the punctuation and capitalization[/color]

Silly argument. How does deleting content (punctuation) relate to alt
text?
[color=blue]
> and ran paragraphs together?[/color]

That would be a failure to provide visual clues to the semantic
meaning of a paragraph. <P> conveys semantic meaning. <IMG> does not.
[color=blue]
> The purpose is not to pretend that the image doesn't exist[/color]

If there is no inline image support, or image loading is off, then
pretending is not the issue. The image contents are irrelevant, and
the alt text is relevant.
[color=blue]
> In the case of the bull and the canoe, for example, there is
> probably nothing out of the ordinary with their juxtaposition on
> the graphically rendered page. There is nothing wrong with their
> descriptions.[/color]

I think the point is that descriptions are generally not appropriate
for alt text.

<img src="bull.jpg" alt="On a recent trip, I saw a bull in the water.">
<img src="canoeing" alt="My friend and I paddled a 15 foot wooden canoe.">

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

[Barry Pearson]

Re: LONGDESC files

Harlan Messinger wrote:[color=blue]
> "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tu t.fi> wrote in message
> news:Xns9445270 D1EC6jkorpelacs tutfi@193.229.0 .31...[/color]
[snip][color=blue][color=green]
>> That way, you would consider which texts might have image
>> alternatives, instead of the opposite approach, which so often tends
>> to become a useless play with attributes without thinking _why_ you
>> are writing them.[/color]
>
> I'm sorry, but I'm not going to buy into a theory that the purpose of
> images is solely to substitute for text.[/color]
[snip]

I agree. My photograph pages are there to display my photographs! Everything
else is subsidiary.

My standard mark-up for the photographs on those pages is:

<h1><img ........ alt="....."></h1>

Some browsers display the alt text in the format of a heading if the image
isn't there. So I do try to make the alt text suitable for use in a heading. I
don't know how that corresponds to Jukka's principle.

--
Barry Pearson

http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/

http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/

http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/

[Harlan Messinger]

Re: LONGDESC files


"Brian" <usenet2@juliet remblay.com.inv alid-remove-this-part> wrote in
message news:hR2zb.1993 46$Dw6.743973@a ttbi_s02...[color=blue]
> Harlan Messinger wrote:[color=green]
> >[color=darkred]
> >>> I'm referring to "Photo of a bull in the water canoeing" and
> >>> "MIT/LCSINRIAKeioDAR PACEC".[/color]
> >
> > User agents are supposed to use tags to provide users with the cues
> > they need to understand the content of the page. How would one rate
> > a browser that reads a properly constructed HTML list with no cues
> > indicating that all the items constitute a list rather than one
> > drawn-out sentence?[/color]
>
> As a deficient browser. A ua should indicate to the user that it is a
> list. UL means, semantically, here is an unordered list. But IMG
> does not, by itself, convey semantic meaning. The content of the
> image does that. How can a ua determine the meaning of the content of
> a jpeg image by itself? It cannot, of course. It is left to the
> author, who is in the best position to provide the meaning for
> situations where images are not rendered.
>[color=green]
> > How would one rate a visual browser, whether graphical or
> > text-based, that deleted all the punctuation and capitalization[/color]
>
> Silly argument. How does deleting content (punctuation) relate to alt
> text?[/color]

Punctuation isn't "content" any more than tags are. Both are cues that help
the reader interpret text as something other than an unbroken,
undistinguishab le torrent of words.
[color=blue]
>[color=green]
> > and ran paragraphs together?[/color]
>
> That would be a failure to provide visual clues to the semantic
> meaning of a paragraph. <P> conveys semantic meaning. <IMG> does not.[/color]

Of couse it does. It means precisely, "Hey, this isn't part of the main flow
of the text, it's a separate piece of information." Just like "<p>" means,
"Hey, I've just gone on to a different idea here."
[color=blue]
>[color=green]
> > The purpose is not to pretend that the image doesn't exist[/color]
>
> If there is no inline image support, or image loading is off, then
> pretending is not the issue. The image contents are irrelevant, and
> the alt text is relevant.
>[color=green]
> > In the case of the bull and the canoe, for example, there is
> > probably nothing out of the ordinary with their juxtaposition on
> > the graphically rendered page. There is nothing wrong with their
> > descriptions.[/color]
>
> I think the point is that descriptions are generally not appropriate
> for alt text.[/color]

I think this falls into the "damned if you do, damned if you don't"
category. I could say, "Well, the blind can't appreciate illustrations, so
I'll just use alt=" " and then they won't know that the illustrations are
there." But then I'm told that even the blind are entitled to know about
everything significant that's on the page. Well, just as a cigar is
sometimes just a cigar, an illustration is sometimes just an illustration.
Its meaning lies entirely in what it depicts. So the alt text describes the
photo. And then you tell me it shouldn't.
[color=blue]
>
> <img src="bull.jpg" alt="On a recent trip, I saw a bull in the water.">
> <img src="canoeing" alt="My friend and I paddled a 15 foot wooden canoe.">[/color]

Nowhere is the principle stated that the alt information should provide
*more* information than the image! If I'm not telling the typical IE user
that the bull in the picture happens to have been seen by me, then why does
that need to be spelled out to the Lynx user? And since when does "On a
recent trip, I saw a bull in the water" necessarily merge intelligently with
the text that happens to surround it?

[Brian]

Re: LONGDESC files

Harlan Messinger wrote:[color=blue]
> "Brian" wrote
>[color=green]
>> Harlan Messinger wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>>> I'm referring to "Photo of a bull in the water canoeing"
>>>>> and "MIT/LCSINRIAKeioDAR PACEC".[/color]
>>[color=darkred]
>>> How would one rate a visual browser, whether graphical or
>>> text-based, that deleted all the punctuation and capitalization
>>>[/color]
>>
>> Silly argument. How does deleting content (punctuation) relate
>> to alt text?[/color]
>
> Punctuation isn't "content" any more than tags are.[/color]

Of course it is. The author, not the ua, puts in periods, question
marks, and so on. (The <q> element tried to change that, and has failed.)
[color=blue]
> Both are cues that help the reader interpret text as something
> other than an unbroken, undistinguishab le torrent of words.[/color]

Interogative pronouns are cues that help the reader interpret text as
a question, and not a statement. Such pronouns are content added by
the author, not the ua.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> That would be a failure to provide visual clues to the semantic
>> meaning of a paragraph. <P> conveys semantic meaning. <IMG>
>> does not.[/color]
>
> Of couse it does. It means precisely, "Hey, this isn't part of the
> main flow of the text, it's a separate piece of information."[/color]

Precisely? Where did you read that? Here's what I found in the html
4.01 spec.

<quote>
The IMG element embeds an image in the current document at the
location of the element's definition. The IMG element has no content;
it is usually replaced inline by the image designated by the src
attribute, the exception being for left or right-aligned images that
are "floated" out of line.
</quote>

Note the part that says, "The IMG element has no content." As such,
how can a ua confer meaning upon it?
[color=blue][color=green]
>> <img src="bull.jpg" alt="On a recent trip, I saw a bull in the
>> water."> <img src="canoeing" alt="My friend and I paddled a 15
>> foot wooden canoe.">[/color]
>
> Nowhere is the principle stated that the alt information should
> provide *more* information than the image![/color]

Whenever possible, it should provide the same information, not more,
not less. I was imagining a context for the images. When writing alt
text, ask yourself why you're putting that image there. Why might
someone put an image of a bull in the water on a web page? Perhaps to
share with readers what he saw on a camping trip? Then the alt text I
wrote is appropriate. Obviously, if the context is something else,
than the alt text must be written differently.
[color=blue]
> If I'm not telling the typical IE user that the bull in the picture
> happens to have been seen by me, then why does that need to be
> spelled out to the Lynx user?[/color]

That was an example of alt text that might be appropriate if the page
were about a camping trip, on which the author canoed down a river and
saw a bull in the water. Of course it's hypothetical, since I didn't
see the bull in question. Did you mistake me for the author of the
original html document? I can't imagine you did, and thus can't
imagine what you're scolding me for.
[color=blue]
> And since when does "On a recent trip, I saw a bull in the water"
> necessarily merge intelligently with the text that happens to
> surround it?[/color]

It only merges with the text if the author writes it to merge with the
text.

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

[Harlan Messinger]

Re: LONGDESC files


"Brian" <usenet2@juliet remblay.com.inv alid-remove-this-part> wrote in
message news:WV4zb.3949 24$HS4.3204510@ attbi_s01...[color=blue]
> Harlan Messinger wrote:[color=green]
> > "Brian" wrote
> >[color=darkred]
> >> Harlan Messinger wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> I'm referring to "Photo of a bull in the water canoeing"
> >>>>> and "MIT/LCSINRIAKeioDAR PACEC".
> >>
> >>> How would one rate a visual browser, whether graphical or
> >>> text-based, that deleted all the punctuation and capitalization
> >>>
> >>
> >> Silly argument. How does deleting content (punctuation) relate
> >> to alt text?[/color]
> >
> > Punctuation isn't "content" any more than tags are.[/color]
>
> Of course it is. The author, not the ua, puts in periods, question
> marks, and so on.[/color]

You're going to have to be consistent one way or the other. The web page
author puts in the <img> tag. If whether something is "content" is
determined by who put it there, either punctuation and <img> tags are both
content or neither are.

In fact, whether something is "content" is not defined by who puts it there.
[color=blue]
> (The <q> element tried to change that, and has failed.)
>[color=green]
> > Both are cues that help the reader interpret text as something
> > other than an unbroken, undistinguishab le torrent of words.[/color]
>
> Interogative pronouns are cues that help the reader interpret text as
> a question, and not a statement. Such pronouns are content added by
> the author, not the ua.[/color]

Who was talking about pronouns?
[color=blue]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >> That would be a failure to provide visual clues to the semantic
> >> meaning of a paragraph. <P> conveys semantic meaning. <IMG>
> >> does not.[/color]
> >
> > Of couse it does. It means precisely, "Hey, this isn't part of the
> > main flow of the text, it's a separate piece of information."[/color]
>
> Precisely? Where did you read that? Here's what I found in the html
> 4.01 spec.
>
> <quote>
> The IMG element embeds an image in the current document at the
> location of the element's definition. The IMG element has no content;
> it is usually replaced inline by the image designated by the src
> attribute, the exception being for left or right-aligned images that
> are "floated" out of line.
> </quote>
>
> Note the part that says, "The IMG element has no content." As such,
> how can a ua confer meaning upon it?[/color]

ROFL. Good grief! That's a completely different use of the word "content".
To say an HTML tag (or any SGML tag, I suppose) "has no content" means that
it can only be used in the form

<tag ...>

while "has content" means that it can also be used in the form

<tag ...>stuff</tag>

(or

<tag ...>stuff

if the ending tag is optional).

That has nothing to do with the content of a communcation as distinguished
from such other characteristics of a communication as intonation, gestures,
cues, cadence, pitch, non-verbal oral utterances, punctuation, font, size,
style, color, or layout.
[color=blue]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >> <img src="bull.jpg" alt="On a recent trip, I saw a bull in the
> >> water."> <img src="canoeing" alt="My friend and I paddled a 15
> >> foot wooden canoe.">[/color]
> >
> > Nowhere is the principle stated that the alt information should
> > provide *more* information than the image![/color]
>
> Whenever possible, it should provide the same information, not more,
> not less. I was imagining a context for the images. When writing alt
> text, ask yourself why you're putting that image there.[/color]

Sometimes it's just visual appeal. It's as simple as that. Maybe you're
illustrating a page about Spain with a picture of a bull. Your page is not
*about* bulls. There is no mention of a bull in your text. You don't want to
write, "Bulls are commonly associated with Spain" or "Bullfighti ng is the
Spanish national pastime" if your page has nothing about bulls on it. Your
reader will wonder why you're bringing up bulls out of the blue. Yet someone
seeing the image will know perfectly well that it's a simple illustration.
You see, the person who put the image there might assume that most people
know perfectly well that bulls have a particular association with Spain.
Therefore, a picture of a bull is a good general illustration for a page
about Spain. Now, what to do about someone who isn't viewing images? You
either tell him nothing, or you tell him there's a picture of a bull. Those
are your choices.
[color=blue]
>Why might
> someone put an image of a bull in the water on a web page?
> Perhaps to
> share with readers what he saw on a camping trip? Then the alt text I
> wrote is appropriate. Obviously, if the context is something else,
> than the alt text must be written differently.
>[color=green]
> > If I'm not telling the typical IE user that the bull in the picture
> > happens to have been seen by me, then why does that need to be
> > spelled out to the Lynx user?[/color]
>
> That was an example of alt text that might be appropriate if the page
> were about a camping trip, on which the author canoed down a river and
> saw a bull in the water. Of course it's hypothetical, since I didn't
> see the bull in question. Did you mistake me for the author of the
> original html document? I can't imagine you did, and thus can't
> imagine what you're scolding me for.
>[color=green]
> > And since when does "On a recent trip, I saw a bull in the water"
> > necessarily merge intelligently with the text that happens to
> > surround it?[/color]
>
> It only merges with the text if the author writes it to merge with the
> text.[/color]

Care to explain how to avoid that? The "howler" is supposed to be based on
the premise that that is automatically how the browser will read the alt
text.

[Alan J. Flavell]

Re: LONGDESC files

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Harlan Messinger wrote:
[color=blue]
> Punctuation isn't "content" any more than tags are.[/color]

Let's not get side-tracked with quibbles over semantics. Written or
printed texts are usually shown with punctuation, and without markup
being visible. I'd say that puts the punctuation closer to being
content than being markup. But if it amuses you...
[color=blue]
> Both are cues that help the reader interpret text as something other
> than an unbroken, undistinguishab le torrent of words.[/color]

If it makes you any happier, I'll go along with that for the purposes
of discussion.
[color=blue]
> <P> conveys semantic meaning. <IMG> does not.
>
> Of couse it does. It means precisely, "Hey, this isn't part of the main flow
> of the text,[/color]

As HTML is defined, the <img...> , in and of itself, is flowed into
the text. You have to take deliberate actions to get it out of the
flow if that is your intention.

It works best, IMHO, if the alt text (used instead of the image) can
also flow into the context, unless the image has been taken out of the
flow, in which case the alt text would be taken out of the flow too.
The idea seems to me to be coherent, anyway.
[color=blue]
> it's a separate piece of information."[/color]

No more than each word is a "separate piece of information", as far as
HTML markup is concerned.
[color=blue]
> Just like "<p>" means, "Hey, I've just gone on to a different idea
> here."[/color]

There's a reason why <p> is characterised as a block-mode element,
whereas <img...> is characterised as an inline element which can be
flowed into text at any point.
[color=blue]
> I think this falls into the "damned if you do, damned if you don't"
> category. I could say, "Well, the blind can't appreciate illustrations, so
> I'll just use alt=" " and then they won't know that the illustrations are
> there." But then I'm told that even the blind are entitled to know about
> everything significant that's on the page.[/color]

Some take that view, indeed, and we have the title= attribute for
supplying additional information about the element to which it's
applied, above and beyond the "alternativ e text" which we say is the
intent of the alt= attribute.

Others take the view that the important thing to them is the
information, and that text and images (and possibly optional sound)
are alternative ways of conveying information. They'd find it
unnecessarily distracting to be presented with much detailed chatter
about the visual appearance of the page, when all that they wanted was
the information contained in it. Ergo, there need to be user agent
options so that the reader can get what they're seeking; and the
author needs to take care to put the right stuff into the right places
so that those with such configurable browsers can retrieve it.
[color=blue]
> an illustration is sometimes just an illustration.
> Its meaning lies entirely in what it depicts.[/color]

There are such cases, indeed. Let them not be used to defeat the
intent of the alt= attribute in general, though.
[color=blue]
> So the alt text describes the photo. And then you tell me it
> shouldn't.[/color]

I tell you that, in relation to images in general, "that seems to be
wrong more often than it's right". Of course, for someone whose main
business is the production of pictures, this might seem an unbalanced
opinion; but IMHO most people put pictures into their web pages to
illustrate some information - using that term in its most general
sense - rather than to supply a purely visual experience for which
there can be no verbal substitue.

YMMV and IMHO, keep cool after opening...

[Harlan Messinger]

Re: LONGDESC files


"Alan J. Flavell" <flavell@ph.gla .ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4 .53.03120219455 70.20227@ppepc5 6.ph.gla.ac.uk. ..[color=blue]
> On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Harlan Messinger wrote:
>[color=green]
> > Punctuation isn't "content" any more than tags are.[/color]
>
> Let's not get side-tracked with quibbles over semantics. Written or
> printed texts are usually shown with punctuation, and without markup
> being visible. I'd say that puts the punctuation closer to being
> content than being markup.[/color]

Not at all. The whole point of markup is to tell the rendering agent that
there is some useful demarcation or classification. It leaves it up to the
agent to determine *what* to do with that information, but if a browser
pretends it's not there and doesn't pass it on in some useful form, what
good is it?

"Content" is the information--the words AND sometimes the illustrations.
Punctuation and HTML are both information *about* the information--metadata.
[color=blue]
> But if it amuses you...
>[color=green]
> > Both are cues that help the reader interpret text as something other
> > than an unbroken, undistinguishab le torrent of words.[/color]
>
> If it makes you any happier, I'll go along with that for the purposes
> of discussion.
>[color=green]
> > <P> conveys semantic meaning. <IMG> does not.
> >
> > Of couse it does. It means precisely, "Hey, this isn't part of the main[/color][/color]
flow[color=blue][color=green]
> > of the text,[/color]
>
> As HTML is defined, the <img...> , in and of itself, is flowed into
> the text.[/color]

You're failing to distinguish layout flow from logical flow. They aren't the
same thing. Maybe that's the problem here. You call it "quibbling about
semantics", but it's not just a quibble. Look at Brian's failure to
distinguish the content of a tag from the content of a communication.
[color=blue]
>You have to take deliberate actions to get it out of the
> flow if that is your intention.
>
> It works best, IMHO, if the alt text (used instead of the image) can
> also flow into the context, unless the image has been taken out of the
> flow, in which case the alt text would be taken out of the flow too.
> The idea seems to me to be coherent, anyway.
>[color=green]
> > it's a separate piece of information."[/color]
>
> No more than each word is a "separate piece of information", as far as
> HTML markup is concerned.
>[color=green]
> > Just like "<p>" means, "Hey, I've just gone on to a different idea
> > here."[/color]
>
> There's a reason why <p> is characterised as a block-mode element,
> whereas <img...> is characterised as an inline element which can be
> flowed into text at any point.[/color]

"Block" and "in-line" are layout concepts. You are confusing them with
communication concepts.
[color=blue]
>[color=green]
> > I think this falls into the "damned if you do, damned if you don't"
> > category. I could say, "Well, the blind can't appreciate illustrations,[/color][/color]
so[color=blue][color=green]
> > I'll just use alt=" " and then they won't know that the illustrations[/color][/color]
are[color=blue][color=green]
> > there." But then I'm told that even the blind are entitled to know about
> > everything significant that's on the page.[/color]
>
> Some take that view, indeed, and we have the title= attribute for
> supplying additional information about the element to which it's
> applied, above and beyond the "alternativ e text" which we say is the
> intent of the alt= attribute.
>
> Others take the view that the important thing to them is the
> information, and that text and images (and possibly optional sound)
> are alternative ways of conveying information. They'd find it
> unnecessarily distracting to be presented with much detailed chatter
> about the visual appearance of the page, when all that they wanted was
> the information contained in it. Ergo, there need to be user agent
> options so that the reader can get what they're seeking; and the
> author needs to take care to put the right stuff into the right places
> so that those with such configurable browsers can retrieve it.
>[color=green]
> > an illustration is sometimes just an illustration.
> > Its meaning lies entirely in what it depicts.[/color]
>
> There are such cases, indeed. Let them not be used to defeat the
> intent of the alt= attribute in general, though.[/color]

It seems to me that this is the tail wagging the dog.

[William Tasso]

Re: LONGDESC files

Harlan Messinger wrote:[color=blue]
> "Alan J. Flavell" <flavell@ph.gla .ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:Pine.LNX.4 .53.03120219455 70.20227@ppepc5 6.ph.gla.ac.uk. ..[color=green]
>> On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Harlan Messinger wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> Punctuation isn't "content" any more than tags are.[/color]
>>
>> Let's not get side-tracked with quibbles over semantics. Written or
>> printed texts are usually shown with punctuation, and without markup
>> being visible. I'd say that puts the punctuation closer to being
>> content than being markup.[/color]
>
> Not at all. The whole point of markup is to tell the rendering agent
> that there is some useful demarcation or classification. It leaves it
> up to the agent to determine *what* to do with that information, but
> if a browser pretends it's not there and doesn't pass it on in some
> useful form, what good is it?
>
> "Content" is the information--the words AND sometimes the
> illustrations. Punctuation and HTML are both information *about* the
> information--metadata.
>[/color]

it is is it
it is, is it?
it is "is it"

--
William Tasso - http://WilliamTasso.com

[Brian]

Re: LONGDESC files

Harlan Messinger wrote:[color=blue]
> "Brian" wrote:
>
> You're going to have to be consistent one way or the other. The web
> page author puts in the <img> tag. If whether something is
> "content" is determined by who put it there, either punctuation and
> <img> tags are both content or neither are.[/color]

<img> is a tag. Question marks, periods, etc., are not tags. They
are the content that goes inside an element's tags, just like letters
and numbers.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> <quote> The IMG element embeds an image in the current document
>> at the location of the element's definition. The IMG element has
>> no content; </quote>
>>
>> Note the part that says, "The IMG element has no content."[/color]
>
> ROFL. Good grief! That's a completely different use of the word
> "content". To say an HTML tag (or any SGML tag, I suppose) "has no
> content" means that it can only be used in the form
>
> <tag ...>[/color]

My bad. I wasn't thinking in terms of sgml.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> When writing alt text, ask yourself why you're putting that image
>> there.[/color]
>
> Sometimes it's just visual appeal. It's as simple as that. Maybe
> you're illustrating a page about Spain with a picture of a bull.
> Your page is not *about* bulls. There is no mention of a bull in
> your text.[/color]

Sometimes, alt="" is the most appropriate choice.
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>> And since when does "On a recent trip, I saw a bull in the
>>> water" necessarily merge intelligently with the text that
>>> happens to surround it?[/color]
>>
>> It only merges with the text if the author writes it to merge
>> with the text.[/color]
>
> Care to explain how to avoid that?[/color]

Avoid it? I'm not sure how one would avoid it. Do you want to know
how to prevent alt text from being rendered inside e.g. a pargraph?
The same way as for the image that would replace it, no? Float or
position it.

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Re: LONGDESC files

"Barry Pearson" <news@childsupp ortanalysis.co. uk> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Harlan Messinger wrote:[color=green]
>> "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tu t.fi> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9445270 D1EC6jkorpelacs tutfi@193.229.0 .31...[/color]
> [snip][color=green][color=darkred]
>>> That way, you would consider which texts might have image
>>> alternatives, instead of the opposite approach, which so often
>>> tends to become a useless play with attributes without thinking
>>> _why_ you are writing them.[/color]
>>
>> I'm sorry, but I'm not going to buy into a theory that the purpose
>> of images is solely to substitute for text.[/color]
> [snip]
>
> I agree.[/color]

You agree with the strawman argument?
[color=blue]
> My photograph pages are there to display my photographs![/color]

If you wish to put it that way, yes. Then comes the fact that the page
may and will be accessed by user agents that do not display them, or by
software that doesn't even try to present the document to anyone. What
would you say to such visitors? It depends on your photographs, but I
guess it boils down to a set of texts that describe which photographs
you have. You are not expected to explain their content in words.
Instead, you would give the metainformation . So there you have the
basic text, where you then provide graphic alternatives to some text,
namely the actual photos.
[color=blue]
> My standard mark-up for the photographs on those pages is:
>
> <h1><img ........ alt="....."></h1>[/color]

Are all your photos first level headings? Doesn't sound reasonable.
[color=blue]
> Some browsers display the alt text in the format of a heading if
> the image isn't there.[/color]

Well, that's part of the problem - unless your photos are something
rather special.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Re: LONGDESC files

"Harlan Messinger" <h.messinger@co mcast.net> wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> What's wrong with the first one, as user agent behavior? There are
>> two <img> elements separated by whitespace. The correct behavior,
>> when a browser does not display the images, is to act as if those
>> elements would be replaced by their alt texts.[/color]
>
> You say it's the correct behavior, but it's that behavior that
> causes the problem. So why is it the "correct behavior"?[/color]

It is correct behavior because it conforms to the letter and spirit of
the specifications. It is not a user agent's job to guess that the
author meant something else than what he marked up.

Similarly, if you write <h6>some text</h6> in a misguided attempt to
make text smaller, then a browser behaves correctly when it actually
renders the text in a manner suitable for _headings_ (though low-level
ones). If browsers guessed that the author meant 'make this small',
then it would go all wrong in all those cases where the author really
meant 6th level heading when he said 6th level heading.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html

[Graham J]

Re: LONGDESC files

> What's wrong with the first one, as user agent behavior? There are two[color=blue]
> <img> elements separated by whitespace. The correct behavior, when a
> browser does not display the images, is to act as if those elements
> would be replaced by their alt texts. Anything else would be contrary
> to the meaning and purpose of alt attributes. A browser is not to be
> blamed for displaying what the author had actually written, instead of
> what he should have written.[/color]

It of course is highly subjective what is correct behaviour. I am sure we
all agree that alt text is indeed there to be used when the images are not
displayed (there is also no reason why a browser shouldn't use it in some
way when they are displayed should it so wish, as long as it honours the
primary use) but how it is used is another matter. I disagree with the idea
of "acting as if the elements would be replaced by their alt texts". The
alt text is an alternate rendering of the img element but the important
thing is that it is still the img element being rendered. It seems quite
reasonable for browsers to provide some acknowledgement of that.

As it happens I consider running the alt text into the flow is a perfectly
reasonable thing to do as img is an inline element after all, but the fact
that it is still an img element should not be lost if there are ways of
indicating this. The user should be made aware directly or indirectly that
this is an img element.

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Re: LONGDESC files

"Graham J" <me@privacy.net > wrote:
[color=blue]
> It of course is highly subjective what is correct behaviour.[/color]

Not really, in this case.
[color=blue]
> I am
> sure we all agree that alt text is indeed there to be used when the
> images are not displayed[/color]

I hope so. That _is_ the correct behaviour, and there's nothing
subjective about it, but people have got a wrong idea, often a
_completely_ wrong idea about this, and that's probably the main reason
behind the alt text problem.
[color=blue]
> but how it is used is another matter.[/color]

There are some liberties in rendering text, but if we can agree on the
principle, then the question _is_ about rendering text, is it not? You
seem to wish to convert it to a different question.
[color=blue]
> I disagree with the idea of "acting as if the
> elements would be replaced by their alt texts".[/color]

What else would it be? That's just a paraphrase of the principle we
just agreed on.
[color=blue]
> The alt text is an
> alternate rendering of the img element but the important thing is
> that it is still the img element being rendered.[/color]

An img element has two attributes that specify its information content,
the alt attribute and the src attribute. They are defined to be used as
alternatives, in different rendering situations. While it might be
useful, and indeed recommendable as browsers go, to _allow_ an
_optional_ access to the other alternative and thereby to make such
information available _upon request_, it would be just confusing in
most situations to tell people who are not looking at the image (and
quite possibly couldn't look at it) that the text they see or hear or
read with their fingertips is actually a replacement for some image.

Admittedly, sometimes an alt text is neither a complete replacement for
the information content nor just a description (like "[my photo]"),
e.g. when the image is a pie chart and the alt text just explains the
_main_ point in the data. But in such cases, knowing that some text is
a replacement for an image is not really useful. What the user would
need is, for example, an explicit link to a separate HTML document that
contains the complete data in a non-graphic format (or, if someone
believes in the longdesc theory, an implicit longdesc link to it).
[color=blue]
> As it happens I consider running the alt text into the flow is a
> perfectly reasonable thing to do as img is an inline element after
> all, but the fact that it is still an img element should not be
> lost if there are ways of indicating this. The user should be made
> aware directly or indirectly that this is an img element.[/color]

Why? Should all those spacer images be announced that way too? And all
purely decorational images? What about images that contain just text
in a particular appearance? I think it would be completely nonsensical
to tell the user that the text he hears is a replacement for an image
in such cases. And browsers could hardly be expected to distinguish
between different relationships with an alt text and the image.

Finally, the point was, in the examples where this started, that an
author had sloppily written <img> elements without thinking what sense
they make when their alt texts are read in succession. Spaces and
punctuation are relevant in alt texts as elsewhere.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html

[Barry Pearson]

Re: LONGDESC files

Jukka K. Korpela wrote:[color=blue]
> "Barry Pearson" <news@childsupp ortanalysis.co. uk> wrote:[/color]
[snip][color=blue][color=green]
>> My photograph pages are there to display my photographs![/color]
>
> If you wish to put it that way, yes. Then comes the fact that the page
> may and will be accessed by user agents that do not display them, or
> by software that doesn't even try to present the document to anyone.
> What would you say to such visitors? It depends on your photographs,
> but I guess it boils down to a set of texts that describe which
> photographs you have. You are not expected to explain their content
> in words. Instead, you would give the metainformation . So there you
> have the basic text, where you then provide graphic alternatives to
> some text, namely the actual photos.[/color]

The sole reason that those pages exist is so that people can look [sic] at my
photographs. If people can't see them for any reason, there is no point in
going there.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> My standard mark-up for the photographs on those pages is:
>> <h1><img ........ alt="....."></h1>[/color]
>
> Are all your photos first level headings? Doesn't sound reasonable.[/color]

The photograph is the reason the page exists. There is no text that could
sensibly serve as a heading. So if there is to be a first level heading, it is
the photograph. (Previously I didn't having headings on those pages).
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Some browsers display the alt text in the format of a heading if
>> the image isn't there.[/color]
>
> Well, that's part of the problem - unless your photos are something
> rather special.[/color]

Who is to say whether they are rather special? They are to me. Photographers
like looking at one-another's work. I like seeing photographs of a good size,
for example 700 x 500 or larger. I produce my photographs to look best on a
calibrated monitor that can show such a size without scrolling. I don't stop
people looking with less ideal equipment, but I don't care if they don't get
the benefits. If they are not prepared to make the effort, they are probably
not part of my target audience.

Perhaps this photograph is a bit special. It is in the December 2003
Dutch-language edition of National Geographic. They found it via a web search.
(Obviously they didn't print this low-resolution web version. They started
with the 3750 x 2646 version).

http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/pictures/eg95/eg95_26_11_3.htm

--
Barry Pearson

http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/

http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/

http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/

[Graham J]

Re: LONGDESC files

> > It of course is highly subjective what is correct behaviour.[color=blue]
>
> Not really, in this case.[/color]

True. I left a critical "the" out. I meant to refer to your expression
"_the_ correct behaviour" when what you were describing was "_a_ correct
behaviour".
[color=blue][color=green]
> > I am sure we all agree that alt text is indeed there to be used when the
> > images are not displayed[/color]
>
> I hope so. That _is_ the correct behaviour, and there's nothing
> subjective about it,[/color]

Yes I agree.
[color=blue][color=green]
> > but how it is used is another matter.[/color]
>
> There are some liberties in rendering text, but if we can agree on the
> principle, then the question _is_ about rendering text, is it not? You
> seem to wish to convert it to a different question.[/color]

I was challenging the assertion that _the_ correct behaviour was just to
render alt text in the flow of the document as if the img never existed.
That is _a_ correct behaviour and you might even consider it the best way to
do it. However graphical browsers displaying the text inside image place
holders, or text ones displaying it as [alt text] or giving it a colour, or
speech browsers changing the emphasis or phrasing for it are all also
correct behaviours. You might not like them but they aren't actually wrong
and others may prefer it.
[color=blue][color=green]
> > I disagree with the idea of "acting as if the
> > elements would be replaced by their alt texts".[/color]
>
> What else would it be? That's just a paraphrase of the principle we
> just agreed on.[/color]

Not at all. You talk about acting as if the original <img> element never
existed and there was only the alt text. I say that that the association
with an <img> element shouldn't be lost as it might be important.
[color=blue]
> it would be just[/color]
confusing in[color=blue]
> most situations to tell people who are not looking at the image (and
> quite possibly couldn't look at it) that the text they see or hear or
> read with their fingertips is actually a replacement for some image.[/color]

Ah well that is where we differ. I consider that it is very important to
know that the text is replacing an image. I want to know it is alt text
just as I like to know where links are or emphasised text or headings.
[color=blue]
> Why? Should all those spacer images be announced that way too? And all
> purely decorational images? What about images that contain just text
> in a particular appearance? I think it would be completely nonsensical
> to tell the user that the text he hears is a replacement for an image
> in such cases.[/color]

If the images are spacers or decorational I would say it is critical to tell
the user that any text shown is an image replacement because it is likely to
be nonsensical otherwise. The chances are it needn't be shown at all.

What about a case where you are talking about a footballer who looks like a
horse? You have a picture of the footballer and a picture of the horse. It
is a visual joke so it would make sense to know that the page contains img
elements.

Sure there are cases where well written alt text can adequately replace the
image without needing highlighting in some way. However in very many cases
even the best written alt text can never adequately replace it and it is
important to know the image is there.
[color=blue]
> Finally, the point was, in the examples where this started, that an
> author had sloppily written <img> elements without thinking what sense
> they make when their alt texts are read in succession. Spaces and
> punctuation are relevant in alt texts as elsewhere.[/color]

Yes, and the suggestion was made that browsers were contributing to the
problem by failing to provide any indication that said text was alt text.
It was originally put stronger than that which I would disagree with, but
otherwise I consider the suggestion perfectly reasonable. Some seem to
consider that browsers behaving like that are doing the right thing. I, and
it seems others, consider that if, for example, text browsers are capable of
drawing attention to links and emphasised text then they are also capable of
doing the same for alt text and that they should do as otherwise they are
dropping information. At the very least they should allow the user to
decide whether alt text should be identified in some way.