- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 07 May 2010 09:27:05 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9678 Summary: add rationale for providing an alt when inline description is available Product: HTML WG Version: unspecified Platform: PC OS/Version: Windows NT Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: alt techniques (editor: Steven Faulkner) AssignedTo: faulkner.steve@gmail.com ReportedBy: faulkner.steve@gmail.com QAContact: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org CC: mike@w3.org, public-html@w3.org, faulkner.steve@gmail.com anne wrote: Admittedly I only skimmed through the document for a few minutes, so maybe I missed the answer, but it seems that in Example 2.3 it is not explained what the advantage of including an alternative text in the first place is. If there is a full description it seems one could just use alt="". http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010May/0116.html i replied: The description is an alternative interpretation of the flowchart. if alt="" was used the image would be removed from the accessibility tree for AT users, which is incorrect, the image is not meaningless, it contains information which a range of users could interpret with the aid of the short text alternative and longer description. The alt in this case provides an accessible name for the image that identifies the image for users AT users. It also provides a text alternative for users who have images turned off in their browsers, so they can if they wish load and view the image. If alt="" was used there would be no indication that an image was there. -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Friday, 7 May 2010 09:27:07 UTC