W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 1997

RE: ALT-attribute usage (fwd)

From: David Poehlman <poehlman@clark.net>
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 09:12:26 -0500 (EST)
To: "Kasday, Leonard" <kasday@att.com>
cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.971104090613.17434A-100000@clark.net>
these are god points and I've been following this discussion and
participating it with out thinking of something quite concrete.  The alt
tag is pretty well defined as I understand it and it has worked somewhat
adaquately for those who use it.  I submit that we rely on that
deffinition and develop some loose guidelines as to how it is implimented.
Greg is correct when he states that we are trying to convey
representation.  We could use for instance "list item" to get around the
problem of item nomenclature.  I like the word bullet as I've stated
because that is what it is.  I think what we need is something that will
fit all alt tags as a general rule.  Make it clear and provied example
models for clarification.  As I understand it, an alt tag is an
alternative tag put in place of the image.  it is most often text, but can
be a blank space or a symbol.  I don't want screenreaders to have to put
up with redundancy either but redundancy is part of life even in braille
where we see ---- or **** all over the place in the right context and in
the right form, they can be quite helpfull even if redundant.  Decorative
bullets are nice, but I think the description of them should be given for
someone to read if chosen, and the bullets them selves little gifs or jpgs
or what ever should be denoted simply with the use of the alt tag.


On Tue, 4 Nov 1997, Kasday, Leonard wrote:

> regarding the debate of using the word "item" vs. "bullet".   Here are
> some more arguments in favor of "bullet".
> 
> First,   the word "bullet" can mean "list item" in common parlance.  At
> least, that's how it's used around here.  For example, if someone is
> giving a viewgraph presentation, someone in the audience may ask:
> 
> "I have a question about that third bullet"
> 
> 	The person in the audience is talking about the third list item,
> of course, not the little black dot.  
> 
> 
> 	Second, I think it's more useful to use concrete images when a
> blind and sighted person are communicating. For example, suppose a
> sighted and blind pereson are each viewing a page which as several
> headings, several big pictures, and a bullet list.  If the blind person
> says "third bullet" the sighted person will immediately know what the
> blind person was referring to.  But if the blind person says "third
> item" the sighted person wouldn't know whether the blind person means
> third heading, image, list item, or what.   .
> 
> 
> 	In general, in my experience, sighted people tend to have
> problems thinking abstractly about page content so the more concrete we
> make it for them the better   So that's why it's important for blind
> folks to know what the sighted folks are seeing so they can
> appropriately accommodate them.
> 
> 	By  the way, if you're sighted, please don't take offence.  I'm
> sighted myself.
> 
> 	Len
> 
> 

Hands-On-Technolog(eye)s
touching the internet
voice: 1-(301) 949-7599
poehlman@clark.net
ftp://ftp.clark.net/pub/poehlman
http://www.clark.net/pub/poehlman
Received on Tuesday, 4 November 1997 09:12:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:13:38 GMT