W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2008

Re: Request for review of alt and alt value for authoring or publishing tools

From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 00:10:12 +0200
Message-ID: <480527C4.4070602@malform.no>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
CC: Tomas Caspers <tomas@tomascaspers.de>, John Foliot <foliot@wats.ca>, wai-xtech@w3.org, wai-liaison@w3.org, public-html@w3.org, HTML4All <list@html4all.org>

Ian Hickson 08-04-15 21.26:     
> On Tue, 15 Apr 2008, Tomas Caspers wrote:
> > 
> > Am 15.04.2008 um 20:48 schrieb John Foliot:
> > > Any information is better than no information.  It puts the images in a
> > > rudimentary context (this is image 4 of 9 on the page).  A non-visual user
> > > still may have no idea what the image really is, but can be told that image
> > > number 4 at the "photo-upload site" is of their grandchild, and they could
> > > then copy the file to a flash drive, and have the photo printed and framed
> > > for when visitors come over to visit (just to make the scenario "real").
> > 
> > The same would be true if the AT involved simply read out the filename, 
> > as some of them do in absence of an alt-Attribute.
>
> Indeed the AT itself could read out the "1 of 4" thing -- and at least 
> then there would be a reasonably good chance of the numbering being 
> correct, which would not be the case if we relied on the author. :-)
>   
:-) Have we suddenly stopped discussing the issue of 10000 images on 
**automated** websites?

Btw, I think giving the image number 9999 would not be so useful. But if 
we actually get to agree that there must be replacement text, then we 
could discuss how it is best done.
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Tuesday, 15 April 2008 22:11:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:54 UTC