w3c/wbs-design
or
by mail to sysreq
.
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:
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.
Choice | All 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.
Responder | Survey topic and your position | Comments |
---|---|---|
Brent Bakken |
|
|
Shadi Abou-Zahra |
|
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 |
|
|
Hidde de Vries |
|
|
Karen Herr |
|
|
Kevin White | ||
Laura Carlson |
|
|
Shawn Lawton Henry |
|
|
Mark Palmer |
|
|
Laura Keen |
|
|
Kris Anne Kinney | ||
Vicki Menezes Miller |
|
|
Sylvie Duchateau |
|
|
Daniel Montalvo | ||
Howard Kramer |
|
Choice | Responders |
---|---|
I'll provide input in this survey, and accept the decision of the Groups. |
|
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 abstain from this survey and accept the decision of the Groups. |
|
summary | by responder | by choice
This option is to delete it and not replace it.
Choice | All 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.
Responder | Option 1. Delete the link and paragraph under it | Rationale |
---|---|---|
Brent Bakken |
|
|
Shadi Abou-Zahra |
|
Essentially this is outdated and needs to be changed (see below for more). |
Melanie Philipp | ||
Hidde de Vries |
|
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 |
|
It isn't really adding anything and the alternative doesn't add that much either. |
Laura Carlson |
|
|
Shawn Lawton Henry | ||
Mark Palmer |
|
|
Laura Keen |
|
|
Kris Anne Kinney |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
The information it provides seems useful. But understand if you don't want to point to an non-wai page. |
Choice | Responders |
---|---|
Yes — I strongly support deleting it. |
|
OK — I mildly support deleting it. |
|
Neutral | |
Na — I mildly support not deleting it. |
|
No. — I strongly support not deleting it. |
|
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
Choice | All 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.
Responder | Option 2. Change the link to this W3C doc | Rationale |
---|---|---|
Brent Bakken |
|
|
Shadi Abou-Zahra |
|
With better clarification that this is the W3C version. |
Melanie Philipp | ||
Hidde de Vries |
|
This would reinforce the notion of multiple HTML specs, which I have seen confuse developers a lot. |
Karen Herr |
|
|
Kevin White |
|
Some useful information, although the Tutorials and Understanding give much more practical information |
Laura Carlson |
|
|
Shawn Lawton Henry | ||
Mark Palmer |
|
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 |
|
|
Kris Anne Kinney |
|
|
Vicki Menezes Miller | ||
Sylvie Duchateau | ||
Daniel Montalvo |
|
|
Howard Kramer |
|
The other page seems more straightforward about the alt attribute. |
Choice | Responders |
---|---|
Yes — I strongly support changing it to this link. |
|
OK — I mildly support changing it to this link. |
|
Neutral | |
Na — I mildly do not support changing it to this link. |
|
No. — I strongly do not support changing it to this link. |
|
summary | by responder | by choice
Use this question if you suggest that the link be changed to a different document location:
Choice | All 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.
Responder | Option 3. Change the link to a different doc | Rationale |
---|---|---|
Brent Bakken | ||
Shadi Abou-Zahra |
|
[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 |
Choice | Responders |
---|---|
I strongly support changing it to the link in the Rationale below: | |
I mildly support changing it to the link in the Rationale below: |
|
Neutral — I'm just sharing another idea for a replacement link, not even particularly suggesting it |
summary | by responder | by choice
This option is to change the link to go directly to the WHATWG page that it now redirects to.
Choice | All 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.
Responder | Option 4. Leave the link pointing to the WHATWG page | Rationale |
---|---|---|
Brent Bakken |
|
|
Shadi Abou-Zahra |
|
With changes to the description, to clarify that this is the WHAT WG version. |
Melanie Philipp | ||
Hidde de Vries |
|
|
Karen Herr |
|
We do not control the content of that page. |
Kevin White |
|
The target page doesn't have anything coherent about authoring of useful alt attribute content. |
Laura Carlson |
|
|
Shawn Lawton Henry | ||
Mark Palmer | ||
Laura Keen |
|
|
Kris Anne Kinney |
|
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 |
|
Choice | Responders |
---|---|
Yes — I strongly support leaving the link pointing to the WHATWG page. |
|
OK — I mildly support leaving the link pointing to the WHATWG page. |
|
Neutral | |
Na — I mildly do not support leaving the link pointing to the WHATWG page. |
|
No. — I strongly do not support leaving the link pointing to the WHATWG page. |
|
Compact view of the results / list of email addresses of the responders
WBS home / Questionnaires / WG questionnaires / Answer this questionnaire
w3c/wbs-design
or
by mail to sysreq
.