[uf-new] Use of img in rel-* (with analyzed data)
msporny at digitalbazaar.com
Sun Jul 15 14:45:04 PDT 2007
Tantek Çelik wrote:
> On 7/15/07 11:09 AM, "Manu Sporny" <msporny at digitalbazaar.com> wrote:
>> Tantek Çelik raised the
>> point that web authors often mis-use the ALT attribute.
> To be clear, the conclusion from this is that publishers should be given the
> detailed *choice* of whether or not the alt text in their pages is included
> in microformats property values (rather than being forced to by *always*
> using it in contained properties).
Tantek, I don't quite follow the logic here. Publishers aren't given the
option on whether or not their ALT text shows up in a text-based
browser. They are also not given the option on whether their ALT text is
read out loud when using a screen reader.
Why, then, are we giving them the option on how ALT will be handled with
regards to Microformats? Or rather, why are we giving them the option to
> Thus the alt (or src for that matter) attribute of an <img> element is
> *only* included on a property value if the property is set directly on the
> <img> OR via a class="value" construct.
You don't have the option of setting "rel-*" properties on images. That
is the whole point of this discussion. Your "just set it on the <img>
element" argument doesn't work for "rel-*". rel-* always go on anchor
As for class="value", that is a potential solution... thank you for
identifying it. However, I ask again - why are we giving publishers the
choice of violating the HTML specification? Of hiding data? Where are
the real world examples of why we need to provide that option?
> Our experience with this in practice has been quite good, and in fact, this
> is the first that *anyone* has raised any issues with it (in over two years
> of it functioning this way - that is it's not that no one's written it down
> yet - unlike some of the existing issues), so given experience to date, I
> would assert that we have the 80/20 (or far more than even) case covered
Since you are asserting that the community has 80/20, could you please
provide some data to back up that claim? How many people use images
inside hCard/hCalendar/hAtom and hResume? How many of those people have
@alt specified correctly? Incorrectly? How many examples of images used
in rel-* do we have?
We have collected quite a bit of data (and continue to do so) that shows
that mis-use of @alt isn't as wide-spread as previously asserted. In
fact, it falls quite short of the Microformat community's 80/20 rule. If
I wasn't clear about that previously, here's a re-cap:
As of right now, it looks as though roughly 80-90% of websites are using
@alt correctly, either by not specifying a value or by specifying valid
data in the attribute.
If you'd like me to demonstrate that figure further, I would be more
than happy to do so - using hard data that is available to everybody on
this mailing list.
More information about the microformats-new