The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Copyvio check: using Earwig's Copyvio detector, I found a couple of phrases used elsewhere: "used in HTML and XHTML documents to specify alternative text (alt text) that is to be rendered when the element to which it is applied cannot be rendered."; "for the img and area tags. It is optional for the input tag and the deprecated applet tag". This may be derive from
WP:CIRC, but I've not looked deeply into it as I think in the circumstances
WP:LIMITED can be said to apply.
I had seen those matches too, but they are instances of websites copying Wikipedia rather than the other way around. The two sentences that match are both found in
this, which was posted in November 2015, but the matching text
was already in the article at that time. -
Aoidh (
talk)
01:44, 16 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Images. No alt text for the images? Maybe add 'alt=refer to caption'?
It is unfortunate and ironic that I forgot to post alt text on this article of all places. Unfortunately I copy-pasted the suggested wikicode that pops up when you upload to Commons and didn't think beyond that. -
Aoidh (
talk)
01:44, 16 October 2022 (UTC)reply
I made some script-suggested minor tweaks. Please revert any that seem unreasonable.
"which is not standards-compliant" - no standards have been introduced in the body text yet, so maybe expand this.
Done - I also added W3C's full name here since it felt like a natural place to do so, which alleviates the expansion concern in the Usage section mentioned below. -
Aoidh (
talk)
01:44, 16 October 2022 (UTC)reply
What's the rationale for mentioning IE but not other browsers here?
IE is specifically mentioned because unlike Mozilla and the others, IE didn't follow HTML standards and displayed the alt text as a tooltip, leading to issues with how developers used the attribute, the other browsers don't seem to have had that problem.
The squeaky wheel gets the grease, and the problematic browser gets the sources mentioning the problem. Per
WP:DUE I didn't mention the browsers that are/were compliant because third-party sources don't bother to make a point of mentioning it, and the only sources I could find that did were the browser makers themselves, and even then those were throwaway mentions at best. -
Aoidh (
talk)
01:44, 16 October 2022 (UTC)reply
What makes the Bugzilla page a suitable source for "This behavior led many web developers to misuse the alt attribute when they wished to display tooltips containing additional information about images"?
I'm not sure whether linking the "HTML" in "HTML 1.2" to
HTML would be useful - the link to 4.01 follows shortly afterwards. What do you think?
That sentence and the way it's wikilinked is a holdover from before I started working on the article and I had the same thought, but I think the reason that 4.01 is wikilinked and 1.2 isn't is because the 4.01 wikilink goes directly to the mention of 4.01 on the
HTML article, but the 1.2 draft isn't mentioned by that name on that article so there's nothing direct to link it to; a wikilink would likely just confuse readers clicking on it. -
Aoidh (
talk)
11:39, 16 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Usage
"The W3C's web content accessibility" - expand W3C here, as the first mention in the body.
Seems fine. Somewhat US-centric but one non-US example is provided.
I did try to search for sources for lawsuits in places like India, China, or Japan to make it less Western focused, but these types of lawsuits tend to be in Western countries, mosty especially in the US because of the ADA. I did find sources in places like the UK related to website accessibility, but none that were specifically about the alt attribute seem to be mentioned in any reliable sources that I could find. -
Aoidh (
talk)
11:39, 16 October 2022 (UTC)reply
References
Publisher/website not specified for "Why doesn't Mozilla display my alt tooltips?"
When I was trimming down the EL section I kept that one mainly because of his relevance in the world of HTML development and because it seemed like a fine enough resource for
WP:EL, but I honestly didn't put too much thought into that section because per
Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not#Beyond the scope I was under the impression that the external links section is outside of the scope of the GA criteria. That said, I have no attachment to the link if you wanted to remove it (or the entire section). -
Aoidh (
talk)
11:39, 16 October 2022 (UTC)reply
I'm generally not a fan of essays - it's too hard to distinguish between those that represent consensus and those which are the work of one or few editors. I would have thought that as GA criterion 1.b says "it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation." and
MOS:LAYOUTEL is on the
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout page linked in the phrase, albeit as pretty much a link to another MOS page, that external links sections should be considered in a GA review. But as you've made a case for Hickson it's a moot point as there's a justification for including that one.
BennyOnTheLoose (
talk)
20:07, 16 October 2022 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Copyvio check: using Earwig's Copyvio detector, I found a couple of phrases used elsewhere: "used in HTML and XHTML documents to specify alternative text (alt text) that is to be rendered when the element to which it is applied cannot be rendered."; "for the img and area tags. It is optional for the input tag and the deprecated applet tag". This may be derive from
WP:CIRC, but I've not looked deeply into it as I think in the circumstances
WP:LIMITED can be said to apply.
I had seen those matches too, but they are instances of websites copying Wikipedia rather than the other way around. The two sentences that match are both found in
this, which was posted in November 2015, but the matching text
was already in the article at that time. -
Aoidh (
talk)
01:44, 16 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Images. No alt text for the images? Maybe add 'alt=refer to caption'?
It is unfortunate and ironic that I forgot to post alt text on this article of all places. Unfortunately I copy-pasted the suggested wikicode that pops up when you upload to Commons and didn't think beyond that. -
Aoidh (
talk)
01:44, 16 October 2022 (UTC)reply
I made some script-suggested minor tweaks. Please revert any that seem unreasonable.
"which is not standards-compliant" - no standards have been introduced in the body text yet, so maybe expand this.
Done - I also added W3C's full name here since it felt like a natural place to do so, which alleviates the expansion concern in the Usage section mentioned below. -
Aoidh (
talk)
01:44, 16 October 2022 (UTC)reply
What's the rationale for mentioning IE but not other browsers here?
IE is specifically mentioned because unlike Mozilla and the others, IE didn't follow HTML standards and displayed the alt text as a tooltip, leading to issues with how developers used the attribute, the other browsers don't seem to have had that problem.
The squeaky wheel gets the grease, and the problematic browser gets the sources mentioning the problem. Per
WP:DUE I didn't mention the browsers that are/were compliant because third-party sources don't bother to make a point of mentioning it, and the only sources I could find that did were the browser makers themselves, and even then those were throwaway mentions at best. -
Aoidh (
talk)
01:44, 16 October 2022 (UTC)reply
What makes the Bugzilla page a suitable source for "This behavior led many web developers to misuse the alt attribute when they wished to display tooltips containing additional information about images"?
I'm not sure whether linking the "HTML" in "HTML 1.2" to
HTML would be useful - the link to 4.01 follows shortly afterwards. What do you think?
That sentence and the way it's wikilinked is a holdover from before I started working on the article and I had the same thought, but I think the reason that 4.01 is wikilinked and 1.2 isn't is because the 4.01 wikilink goes directly to the mention of 4.01 on the
HTML article, but the 1.2 draft isn't mentioned by that name on that article so there's nothing direct to link it to; a wikilink would likely just confuse readers clicking on it. -
Aoidh (
talk)
11:39, 16 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Usage
"The W3C's web content accessibility" - expand W3C here, as the first mention in the body.
Seems fine. Somewhat US-centric but one non-US example is provided.
I did try to search for sources for lawsuits in places like India, China, or Japan to make it less Western focused, but these types of lawsuits tend to be in Western countries, mosty especially in the US because of the ADA. I did find sources in places like the UK related to website accessibility, but none that were specifically about the alt attribute seem to be mentioned in any reliable sources that I could find. -
Aoidh (
talk)
11:39, 16 October 2022 (UTC)reply
References
Publisher/website not specified for "Why doesn't Mozilla display my alt tooltips?"
When I was trimming down the EL section I kept that one mainly because of his relevance in the world of HTML development and because it seemed like a fine enough resource for
WP:EL, but I honestly didn't put too much thought into that section because per
Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not#Beyond the scope I was under the impression that the external links section is outside of the scope of the GA criteria. That said, I have no attachment to the link if you wanted to remove it (or the entire section). -
Aoidh (
talk)
11:39, 16 October 2022 (UTC)reply
I'm generally not a fan of essays - it's too hard to distinguish between those that represent consensus and those which are the work of one or few editors. I would have thought that as GA criterion 1.b says "it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation." and
MOS:LAYOUTEL is on the
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout page linked in the phrase, albeit as pretty much a link to another MOS page, that external links sections should be considered in a GA review. But as you've made a case for Hickson it's a moot point as there's a justification for including that one.
BennyOnTheLoose (
talk)
20:07, 16 October 2022 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.