Home
We take for granted that photo-sharing sites must have alternate text for photos in order to be accessible. After all, the assumption is that alternate text makes images accessible in content-rich Web pages; so why not use alternate text to make stand-alone photos accessible? Or is it time to challenge this assumption and have a debate on whether or not alternate text is the best way to make photo-sharing sites accessible?
As a new CEO of W3C takes the reins, the mission of W3C is getting a look over. W3C is the self-appointed steward of the Web. What happens at W3C will ultimately affect us all because the Web has become an integral part of our society. Going forward, W3C has made a commitment to be mindful of the needs of all Web users. How will they fulfill this commitment? And do you trust W3C to represent your interests?
Accessibility checklists based on WCAG or Section 508 guidelines were intended to help make Web sites accessible. These checklists are meant to ensure that the process of accessibility checking is done consistently and comprehensively. So how can accessibility checklists be harmful?
In HTML, an image is made up of visual and textual data (alternate text). Most Web browsers attempt to render alternate text when visual data is not available. However, only one browser currently uses alternate text when pasting images into other applications.
Are we, the stakeholders in Web technology, doing the right things to move Web accessibility forward? Shouldn't we perhaps re-evaluate our strategy, to confirm what we are doing is right, or to find out if we need to develop new strategies?
Microsoft released a preview of IE 9 with support for XHTML and Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG). Microsoft should be commended for supporting XHTML, SVG and their attempt to make application development easier using these technologies. However, their implementation of XHTML and SVG in IE 9 destroys the very essence of these technologies - which is that they must be used according to specification.
The <img> element is one of the more difficult HTML elements to use correctly. Part of the problem is caused by the unhelpful definition of the <img> element in the HTML specification.
Recently, Steve Faulkner performed a detailed comparison of how the leading Web browsers render alternative text that revealed non-uniform behaviour across browsers. Steve called for the HTML5 team to document a recommended behaviour. This article adds to Steve's work and makes a case for what I believe to be the correct way to render alternative text.
The Web is now so tightly integrated into our society that it's second nature to obtain employment, access education, do commerce, get information, get entertainment and even build social relationships online. If the Web is now a permanent and integral part of our society, then is denying a group of people access to much of the Web a form of discrimination and a denial of a human right?
A number of renowned HTML5 supporters are advocating the use of HTML5 to the general public while the spec is still in development, unproven, and subject to change. Is this in the best interest of Web site creators or simply irresponsible behaviour?
HTML5 was conceived and continues to be developed within a group of likeminded people. There has not been any in-depth debate about the design principles of HTML5, the direction in which HTML5 is heading, nor the process in which HTML5 is developed. As a result, HTML5 may not be meeting the needs of many stakeholders in Web technology and may be insufficient to significantly evolve the Web. I invite the HTML5 team to a series of debates, with myself and others, on HTML5 and the future of Web technology.
Currently, each Web browser silently auto-corrects invalid HTML in a different way. HTML5 will harmonize the auto-correction of invalid HTML, so that all browsers will fix errors in the same way. Uniform auto-correction of invalid HTML behaviour across all browsers can only lead to good things - right? Or will this create even more invalid HTML on the Web?
The Web works with valid and invalid HTML. So why is valid HTML important? And how does invalid HTML affect everyone who uses the Web?
One of the primary reasons HTML is authored incorrectly today is because Web browsers do not display error messages when processing corrupt documents (constructed or transmitted incorrectly). Web browser vendors like to refer to these kinds of error messages as "draconian", i.e. unduly punitive. Why?
The transition from existing to future Web technology needs to be smooth or the Web could break. When HTML5 was conceived, it was taken for granted that the future specification (i.e. the language itself) needs to be backwards and forwards compatible. All design decisions in HTML5 are influenced by these two assumptions. If these assumptions are false and there are better alternatives for a smooth transition of the technology, is HTML5 a big design mistake?
What happens when Web browser vendors design new HTML features but don't consult with other parties such as vendors of WYSIWYG editors? We end up with a markup language that's difficult to author and prone to the same misuse as previous versions of HTML.
HTML5 will make the Web browser into an application runtime environment similar to how Java and .NET work, but will use a mishmash of old technologies to achieve this. Is this good for application developers? Is this a good way to develop applications for the next 20 years or is this a big step backwards in application development?
A few years ago I interviewed Ian Hickson, editor of the HTML5 spec. He inferred that the ability to author invalid HTML and have Web browsers silently auto-correct it is the reason the Web has been so "wildly" successful. Unfortunately, many people share his opinion, so it's time to dispel this myth and give credit to the real factors behind the success of the Web.
The HTML specification is a failure because, of its intended users, practically no one is using it as it was intended to be used. Why? Is HTML too difficult to use correctly? Is the incorrect use of HTML explained by a lack of education? Did W3C mismanage the deployment of HTML? Or is the failure of the HTML specification due to a lack of error feedback?
It may be hard to imagine right now, but at some point in time, the Web as we know it will cease to exist. Will the Web be replaced by a competing Internet application or will it simply evolve/morph into a completely different technology?