W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2000

Re: Request for site review

From: Marjolein Katsma <access@javawoman.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 14:50:10 +0200
Message-Id: <4.3.2.20000414144806.00efdc90@pop.javawoman.com>
To: David Poehlman <poehlman@clark.net>
Cc: Jonathan Chetwynd <jay@peepo.com>, Bruce Bailey <bbailey@clark.net>, Web Accessibility Initiative <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
David,

At 07:55 2000-04-14 -0400, David Poehlman wrote:
>The word logo in an alt tag belies the function of alt.
>
>alt is to present an alternative equivalent to, not the function of the
>image.

OK, maybe I'm dumb. I just don't see a better alternative to the W3C logo than "W3C logo".

Can you make up a better ALT attribute that still conveys the fact that it *is* a logo, and not "text to be read"?

>Marjolein Katsma wrote:
> > 
> > These are two LOGOs - they just happen to consist of letters. The ALT attributes for both actually say they're logos. Both also contain more than just letters (lines).
> > 
> > I don't see anything wrong with logos that happen to consist of letters - there are many. They're still logo's in the sense they're used as identification: they're there to be recognized, not "read".
> > 
> > But presenting text that is meant to be _read_ (menus, body text, headers even) in the form of GIFs is another matter.
> > 
> > IMO, of course.
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > 

Marjolein Katsma
HomeSite Help - http://hshelp.com/
Bookstore for Webmasters - http://hshelp.com/bookstore/bookstore.html
Received on Friday, 14 April 2000 08:51:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:13:48 GMT