W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2007

Re: [Spam] Re: using an attribute to categorize the @alt state [was Baby Steps or Backwards Steps?]

From: Joshue O Connor <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 12:34:30 +0100
Message-ID: <46C587C6.3020206@cfit.ie>
To: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Cc: Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>, Smylers <Smylers@stripey.com>, public-html@w3.org

Steven Faulkner wrote:
> It could be said that obliging authors to provide alt text has resulted in
> many meaningless alt texts being provided, but it may also be true that the
> obligation has resulted in a greater acknowledgement and uptake of alt text
> provision because it has been authors brought to the authors attention
> through its requirement.

Also this requirement for alt is one of the first things that authors
come across when they are first dipping their toes into accessibility.
The fact that something is required does focus the attention of authors
and may result of some inquiry on their part, along the lines of "Why is
this required?, "Oh, so blind users can understand what the image is",
"You mean blind people can use computers!", etc!

So having an attribute as a requirement may bring unseen benefits that
outweigh whatever mis-use the attribute may be put to.

Received on Friday, 17 August 2007 11:34:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:25 UTC