W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > June 2009

Re: What makes a failure? (@summary, et al)

From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 13:56:57 +0300
Cc: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-Id: <8099266F-58F6-4A9F-98CF-59F6CB9B0D1D@iki.fi>
To: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
On Jun 8, 2009, at 12:48, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:

> Further, I believe that this represents an improvement in  
> accessibility. This is despite the common use of alt="" or some  
> other default meaningless text where it is inappropriate, which  
> actually reduces the accessibility of the particular page even in  
> comparison to simply leaving off alt, by actively misleading the  
> user. (Leaving off alt is still going to break accessibility in such  
> cases, it is just a slightly lesser among available evils, in a case  
> where it is possible to do good).

Isn't alt as practiced substantially different from summary as  
practiced, though, in the sense that the relative incidence of good or  
at least passable alt is much higher than the relative incidence of  
good or passable summary?

Henri Sivonen
Received on Monday, 8 June 2009 10:57:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:46 UTC