Re: ALT and TITLE Clarification

>> 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?

Chris's proposal would make the word "description" here more accurate.  
I'm not sure that description is the right word for what alt should 
contain.

>>>> 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".

And I wouldn't disagree with the argument you just made or quibble 
about "building blocks".  Seeing null alt or "building blocks" wouldn't 
raise to the threshold of being worth making a fuss over.  Repeating 
all of the text in the image is another thing altogether.

AWK

-- 
Andrew Kirkpatrick
WGBH National Center for Accessible Media
125 Western Ave.
Boston, MA  02134
E-mail: andrew_kirkpatrick@wgbh.org
617.300.4420