W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2001

Illustrations (was Re: Meeting agenda)

From: Marti <marti@agassa.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 10:48:54 -0400
Message-ID: <002501c0c35f$b25ca7a0$a3d6db3f@cais.net>
To: <apembert45@lycos.com>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
 While there certainly are poorly written websites (and everything else too)
we all had to take English (or whatever native tongue) in school and
therefore have some foundation in how to write. While there may be some art
courses in "how to illustrate" it is not something we should expect any
significant number of people to have much experience or expertise in.
 For instance, right off,  I am astounded that different illustrations might
be used for "about this site" or "privacy policy" links - even if the
specific content is different the purpose for the site is the same and I
would have selected the same image on any site (if I could figure out what
an image that meant either one was).
 A visually oriented user has the choice not to read the alt text
information, don't you think a text oriented user should have the choice not
read the image information? (yes I can turn off image loading but I am still
stuck with [image] [inline] and other stuff that interrupts the flow and I
have to get past to find the "content")
 I find myself imagining a website where words and images are used and it
comes across  like this -
1) The sentence: See the dog run.
2) Coded with an inline image of a dog, of course the image needs an alt
text so
3) the sentence is read -  See the dog [dog] run.
I guess we could say illustrations are decorative and don't need an alt text
Received on Thursday, 12 April 2001 11:06:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:36 UTC