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

Re: alt to text

From: Anne Pemberton <apembert@erols.com>
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 17:25:30 -0400
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20010503172530.007f74a0@pop.erols.com>
To: "Marti" <marti@agassa.com>, "Adam Victor Reed" <areed2@calstatela.edu>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Marti,

	I'm working on a full web page as the "long description" for the "ideal
web page" with explanations for each componant. We're opening up the beach
this weekend, so it will be sometime next week before it's ready to share. 

	The problem with "any alt text is better than none", is that those who use
the alt text complain about confusion from some of the "any alt text".
Front Page, for example, automatically inserts the filename of the graphic
in the alt text unless the page author edits the image properties. That
seems to frustrate a lot of people using the alt text.

				Anne

	

At 06:59 AM 5/3/01 -0400, Marti wrote:
>Debates about the "best" alt text can go on forever I think - how about we
>start with "any alt text is better than none".
>That said - your example, where a caption of some sort is already on the
>page, the alt might be best as [illustration].  That is the function of the
>picture and what the picture actually is is covered in the text.
>In the case where more detail is really needed (a page layout) then longdesc
>should be considered.
>Marti
>
>
Anne Pemberton
apembert@erols.com

http://www.erols.com/stevepem
http://www.geocities.com/apembert45
Received on Thursday, 3 May 2001 17:17:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:10 GMT