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

Re: null alt=

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 17:26:55 -0400 (EDT)
To: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
cc: au <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.9904291725230.24289-100000@tux.w3.org>
The guidelines didn't go wrong.

The author went wrong, by providing inappropriate content for the images in
question.

This is human error. Sometime alt="" is extremely appropriate. The second
human error is relying on a machine to check something it can't check.

Charles

On Thu, 29 Apr 1999, William Loughborough wrote:

  "page still gets a bobby approved when in actuality the links, which are
  images with alt="", are invisible." 
  
  If our "AAA conformant" authoring tool put out anything that met the
  above description, where did we go wrong?  The example cited is
  http://www.dors.state.md.us/test.html which I haven't tested.
  
  Bruce Bailey, who brought this up recommends: "My recommendation is that
  ALT="" should be illegal inside <A HREF..."
  -- 
  Love.
              ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
  http://dicomp.pair.com
  

--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, 29 April 1999 17:26:59 UTC

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