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

RE: Request for site review

From: Bruce Bailey <bbailey@clark.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 12:23:28 -0400
To: "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@w3.org>, "Marjolein Katsma" <access@javawoman.com>
Cc: "Web Accessibility Initiative" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000b01bfaae4$c2724f80$53fe330a@msde>
Marjolein commented:
>> 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"?

To which Charles replied:
> What I do...
> In text, as an alt, I use the name of the thing being identified - for
> example W3C. In the title of the image I explain that it is a logo (human
> redable text about the role of the image in the page)
> For example:
>   <img src="w3c_home" alt="World Wide Web Consortium" title="W3C Logo" />

That is a clever attempt to opt out of the debate over which is better.  If
you can't decide, why not do both?  Sorry, I am not buying it.  For my part,
I am loath to use TITLE on IMGs that are NOT links.  And for IMGs that
actually ARE links, I use the TITLE that is specified in the HEAD by the
referenced HREF'ed document.  This is usually something similar for what you
propose for ALT content.  I agree with Marjolein on this one.
Received on Thursday, 20 April 2000 12:27:01 GMT

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