W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2000

RE: the text in images issue [was: errata...]

From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 09:45:44 -0800
Message-Id: <a05010401b660082da31b@[]>
To: love26@gorge.net (William Loughborough), "Bailey, Bruce" <Bruce_Bailey@ed.gov>, "'w3c-wai-gl@w3.org'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
At 9:33 AM -0800 12/15/00, William Loughborough wrote:
>At 12:19 PM 12/15/00 -0500, Bailey, Bruce wrote:
>>Bit-mapped words are NOT acceptable
>Then just don't "accept" them as words. The "problem" only arises 
>where the other methods of including them on the arrow don't work. 
>No reason to deny them to people who *can* see/read them. The caveat 
>that overrides all these discussions is that *of course* we are 
>pre-supposing alt="next".

By the way, if you follow Bruce's suggestion of using CSS to
place the "next" on the graphic, or if you simply include a
text link beside/next to the link, it might be appropriate to
actually make the alt attribute alt="".

See, if you do it otherwise, you have:

    <a href="page02.html"><img src="rarrow.gif" alt="next"/></a>
    <a href="page02.html">next</a>

...which means that if graphics aren't viewed, you see/hear:


Which looks/sounds really bad.  If you do this instead:

    <a href="page02.html"><img src="rarrow.gif" alt=""/></a>
    <a href="page02.html">next</a>

Then you get this:


...which makes more sense and is less confusing to someone who
doesn't see the image.

Any objections to this approach?

Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>
Received on Friday, 15 December 2000 12:59:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:35 UTC