W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 1998


From: Charles McCathieNevile <charlesn@sunrise.srl.rmit.edu.au>
Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 15:30:42 +1000 (EST)
To: "Charles (Chuck) Oppermann" <chuckop@MICROSOFT.com>
cc: WAI <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.980514152601.29423Y-100000@sunrise.srl.rmit.edu.au>

On Wed, 13 May 1998, Charles (Chuck) Oppermann wrote:

> Okay, but what's the point?  <smile> If you want to reserve more space for
> the image, use HEIGHT and WIDTH.  If you ask me, you're trying to take
> advantage of a bug in Netscape, which puts borders around images which are a
> link.  Is there something in the HTML 4.0 specification that says user
> agents should indicate when images are anchors?

it is only when the images are off that I really care - if people are 
loading the images I assume they don't really need a LONGDESC. The border 
around images in general is something I find helpful - rather than guess 
which are links and which are just images, I can easily see (if I was 
tabbing around I suppose I could find out too, but as a visual user it 
isn't my normal way of doing it).

> Chuck:
> Your comment confused me:
> << I had written:
> In Netscape, the object is displayed at the correct size to fit in the alt
> text - this is much more friendly.
> >>
> Chuck:
> Friendlier than what?  What's the correct size of the object?  To me, it's
> the size of the object, which is really small.
> Under IE4.01 with "Show Images" off and "Always Expand ALT Text" on, the
> entire ALT text of both images is shown.
Aaah. A polite way of saying 'read the instructions you idiot'. Sorry 
folks - thanks Chuck. Everything is clearer to me now.

Charles McCathieNevile (feeling a bit sheepish)
better not associate my employer with this one
Received on Thursday, 14 May 1998 01:50:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:01 UTC