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

Re: title inclusion

From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 10:07:15 -0800
Message-Id: <a05101009b832c09384b6@[10.0.1.33]>
To: Joe Clark <joeclark@joeclark.org>, WAI-GL <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
At 1:13 PM -0500 12/4/01, Joe Clark wrote:
>So what I am suggesting is that title be explicitly included in WCAG 
>2.0 as a form of text equivalent for a wide range of objects, 
>including images and multimedia. I assume this would not be a 
>difficult thing to include and would not require huge rewrites.

I agree.

What would you suggest as a good way to explain the difference between
"alt" and "title" on images?  "longdesc" is pretty simple to explain
("it's the url to a page with a longer description of the image"), but
what would distinguish a proper "alt" from a "title"?

I'm looking for something like:

      * Here's an image: <blah>
      * Here's what the "alt" should be
      * Here's what the "title" should be

I'd like to hear what you think and hopefully we can use that to build
consensus for inclusion.

(BTW, looking at things like XLink, I think it's very possible that we
may see "title" replacing "alt" as a generic human-readable-text
attribute in future XML development.)

--Kynn

-- 
Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>
http://www.kynn.com/
Received on Tuesday, 4 December 2001 16:09:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:16 GMT