W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2005

RE: ALT and TITLE Clarification

From: Bailey, Bruce <Bruce.Bailey@ed.gov>
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 15:17:56 -0500
Message-ID: <CCDBDCBFA650F74AA88830D4BACDBAB5076DDF2E@wdcrobe2m02.ed.gov>
To: "Andrew Kirkpatrick" <andrew_kirkpatrick@wgbh.org>
Cc: "WAI WCAG List" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

I want to toss in two more cents to this.

> The HTML 4.01 recommendation includes:
>> you need to provide a description with ALT

Do we not concur that the word "description" is very misleading if not out-and-out wrong?
How about getting this fixed?
Is this corrected with XHTML1?

>>> decorative (e.g. http://www.btyahoo.com/internet has the building 
>>> blocks image).

The image (in this example) contains graphical text, but said text is almost verbatim in the body.  I agree that CSS would be the any excellent solution, perhaps the best.  I agree that, in this specific case, that alt="" would be better than repeating the graphical text.  However, the image is quite prominent, and if a sighted person someone were on the phone with me (and we are discussing the site), they might well say something like, "you know, the page with the building blocks on it".  The screen reader user is potentially disadvantaged is such an obvious visual feature is deliberately obscured from them.  I would make the case for compromise alt content like "building blocks".

I agree with everything else Andrew K. wrote.
Received on Friday, 7 January 2005 20:18:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:35 GMT