W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > April to June 1999

Re: null alt revisited

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 14:56:33 -0400 (EDT)
To: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-hwg@idyllmtn.com>
cc: "w3c-wai-au@w3.org" <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.9904081455130.15377-100000@tux.w3.org>
Yes, as an emergency repair strategy that seems best to me too. I'm not
sure if it should be handled by Authoring Toolsthough - my personal
preference is for it to be done by User Agents (it is one of the things
they currently take responsiblity for, and is in the User Agent
Accesibility Guidelines)

Charles

On Thu, 8 Apr 1999, Kynn Bartlett wrote:

  At 01:45 p.m. 04/08/99 -0400, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
  >Oh, maybe so. seems these days I get lots of [something_unhelpful.gif] but
  >not much [IMAGE]
  
  Actually from a purely informational point of view, the former
  [something_unhelpful.gif] contains more POTENTIALLY useful
  information than either " " or [IMAGE].  Now, you and I know
  that they it SUCKS as ALT text, and nobody should ever use it,
  but looking at it practically, there is at least the potential
  for some useful info to be conveyed by the filename, and none
  by the simple [IMAGE] substitution.
  
  I would 1000% times more desire to see LEGITIMATE, well-written
  alternative text, but when given the choice of three evils, my
  prefs would run [filename.gif] [IMAGE] " ".
  
  --
  Kynn Bartlett <kynn@hwg.org>
  President, Governing Board Member
  HTML Writers Guild <URL:http://www.hwg.org>
  

--Charles McCathieNevile            mailto:charles@w3.org
phone: +1 617 258 0992   http://www.w3.org/People/Charles
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative    http://www.w3.org/WAI
MIT/LCS  -  545 Technology sq., Cambridge MA, 02139,  USA
Received on Thursday, 8 April 1999 14:56:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:39:42 UTC