W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 2014

WCAG-ISSUE-30 (anchor alt vs. ing alt): Need better clarity on (cascading) alt requirements under 2.4.4 and 1.1.1 of linked images [HTML & ARIA Techniques TF]

From: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2014 17:46:53 +0000
Message-Id: <E1X4D09-0006CY-UU@stuart.w3.org>
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
WCAG-ISSUE-30 (anchor alt vs. ing alt): Need better clarity on (cascading) alt requirements under 2.4.4 and 1.1.1 of linked images [HTML & ARIA Techniques TF]

http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/track/issues/30

Raised by: David MacDonald
On product: HTML & ARIA Techniques TF

Suggest a discussion about overlap of requirements for images used as links in anchors which have to have alt text which meets 2.4.4 (and perhaps 1.1.1) vs alt for static images. These days most images are linked and there are many questions about the overlap between their requirements under 2.4.4 and there requirements under 1.1.1

For instance, a linked image with an advertisement which is a photo along with some PhotoShop text on an insurance product... It needs to include the link destination, but does it also require the text that is in the ad, which is what we would require under 1.1.1? If so how much, in what priority... Equivalent purpose 1.1.1 vs link purpose 2.4.4

I've heard an array of opinions on this type of thing, from minimalists who would just give it alt="Family Life Insurance", describing the linked product...  to those who require all of the text in the image to be repeated in the alt and to describe the photo of the family along with the link destination  even though it is not key in understanding the link destination. (Equivalent Purpose seems murky)...I would be glad for us to have a best practice... perhaps in association with Steve's alt text guidance for html5.
Received on Monday, 7 July 2014 17:46:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:34:15 UTC