Ian Hickson 08-04-11 18.58: > > >Rorschach inkblot test. > > > > could be the value of the alt attribute and anyone can look > > on the web, what kind of test this is. > > <figure> > <img src="r14.jpeg" alt="Rorschach inkblot test"> > <legend>Rorschach inkblot test #14</legend> > <figure> > > ...is not any more accessible, and is arguably less accessible, than what > the spec suggests now: > > <figure> > <img src="r14.jpeg"> > <legend>Rorschach inkblot test #14</legend> > <figure> > Ian, if you had not acted as if what you described in the e-mail exactly mathched what the spec described, and then had not acted as if comments to your e-mail is a comment to the example in the spec, then you had confused fewer people. In the e-mail message you said: > In the latter case, _any_ description would miss the point of the > test (which is to see what descriptions people come up with) This immediately obviously triggered many to think about whether any alt text for a Rorschach inkblot card would always be a bad idea. If we switch, as you do here, to talk about the exact usecase as described in the spec, then <img alt='card 14' src="r14.jpg'> should be just fine. It is short, and it would not miss any points. It should be more accessible than the spec is now. (PS: I see that there are only 10 official such Rorschack cards.) -- leif halvard silliReceived on Friday, 11 April 2008 18:05:02 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:40:10 GMT