W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org > June 1999

Re: Guideline 1 in The evaluation techniques document

From: Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 16:21:03 +0200
Message-Id: <199906211421.QAA25957@www4.inria.fr>
To: "Leonard R. Kasday" <kasday@acm.org>
cc: w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org

> http://aprompt.snow.utoronto.ca/docs/Implementation.html
> What do people think of the items under Guideline 1?

Only commenting 1.1 for now.

Instead of 
>  Valid ALT text:

I would call that:
  Evaluation of ALT text

and make a H5 out of it.

>  Not allowed - NULL ALT value (ALT="") 

Was that the consensus when it was discussed on this list ?
Why is it not allowed while " " is ?

>  Language for missing ALT text: Missing ALT text for image
>  Language for suspicious ALT text: Suspicious ALT text for image

This is language for what usage exactly ?

>  Suggestions for possible ALT text:
>  Other checks:

I would make that another heading, same level as Analysis, called
  "Repair of ALT text"

This way, for each (sub)checkpoint, we have an Evaluation section and
a Repair section, clearly delimited.

> Technique 1.1.B [priority 1] Check images for LONGDESC
>    IMG element should have a valid LONGDESC attribute if the image is complex. 
>    If IMG element has no LONGDESC attribute and could be a complex
>       image, ask user if the image is complex and requires a long
>       description.   

I think it's OK to have a complex image which is described in running
text, rather than at the other end of a longdesc URI.
Received on Monday, 21 June 1999 10:21:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:01:28 UTC