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

Re: Investigating the proposed alt attribute recommendations in HTML 5

From: Gez Lemon <gez.lemon@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 23:12:09 +0100
Message-ID: <e2a28a920708291512r55745a17l5b4d0a92366dfc6e@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Jon Barnett" <jonbarnett@gmail.com>
Cc: "Steven Faulkner" <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, HTMLWG <public-html@w3.org>, wai-xtech@w3.org

Hi Jon,

On 29/08/2007, Jon Barnett <jonbarnett@gmail.com> wrote:
> One of the conclusions is that accessibility is harmed by omitting
> @alt because JAWS will instead read the filename (or the entire @src
> attribute).  Is it helpful that JAWS does this at all?  Is it ever
> helpful for JAWS to simply spout out the filename of an image instead
> of simply announcing "Embedded Graphic" for the image with omitted
> @alt.  Regardless of conformance requirements, I'm trying to
> understand why JAWS is doing that.

If an image is used as the link phrase for a link, JAWS must be able
to present something to the screen reader user in order for them to
know whether or not they want to follow the link. In its default
configuration, JAWS only announces the image name as a last resort,
after first looking for alternate text, or text from the title
attribute. If nothing else is available, the image name is chose, as
it might reveal something about the image's function, such as
pigflying.jpg. This is generally true for small websites, but,
unfortunately, not the case for huge websites, such as image sharing
websites where the name is generated by the system.

Best regards,

Gez

-- 
_____________________________
Supplement your vitamins
http://juicystudio.com
Received on Wednesday, 29 August 2007 22:12:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:48 UTC