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: Jim Jewett <jimjjewett@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 21:16:03 -0400
Message-ID: <fb6fbf560804151816y2861d9edjdb7058bce2750ae5@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-html@w3.org, lhs@malform.no
Cc: ian@hixie.ch

(several lists dropped from Cc)

Ian wrote:
> ...while providing no less information -- and arguably
> more, since in the  second case the image-disabled
> user can't easily distinguish it from this third case:

>    <figure>
>     <p>I snapped this photo the other day while walking around the
>     Googleplex and saw Ian Hickson working at his desk.</p>
>     <legend>I snapped this photo the other day while walking around the
>     Googleplex and saw Ian Hickson working at his desk.</legend>
>    </figure>

> ...which, per spec, is semantically equivalent.

Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
> A third bad example, again talking about the fact -
> yest - that it is possible to have alt content without
> having the embedded content in place.

> But, why would anyone drop to place a photo inside
> <figure> or forget the SRC inside <IMG>? How often
> does that happen? Is it a real problem?

It is pretty common for src links to be broken.

It is fairly common that I can get the image anyhow by using
view-source and hand-guessing the URL.  I'll only know to try that if
I know there was an image that got replaced with alt, rather than an
original paragraph.

So I might well be better off if the image has no alt of its own, and
defaults to using the legend with Assistive Tech, but showing a
"broken image" icon above the legend in my UA.

-jJ
Received on Wednesday, 16 April 2008 01:16:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:14 GMT