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

RE: Links to Images

From: Steve Donie <sdonie@zycor.lgc.com>
Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 22:24:23 -0500
Message-ID: <462F323275D6D311BA0200805F356C520D8F72@lgcadev001.zycor.lgc.com>
To: "'Gerald G. Weichbrodt'" <gerald.g.weichbrodt@ived.gm.com>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
In my experience, when this is done the linked image is usually just a
larger version of an image on the preceding page - which should have it's
own alt text. I, for example, maintain a personal 'web photo album', where
the web pages have thumbnails of the photos, which each link to a larger
version of the photo. Having a separate web page for each photo would be
redundant, and a LOT more work. Each photo on the thumbnail pages has alt
text which is the 'caption' of the photo, and which I would probably just
re-use if each photo had its own page. I suppose if I had more textual
information about each photo, I would want to have it in a separate page,
but I have enough trouble just writing captions for them!

Steve Donie

In case you're wondering, the address is

-----Original Message-----
From: Gerald G. Weichbrodt [mailto:gerald.g.weichbrodt@ived.gm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 3:49 PM
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: Links to Images

Hi all.  Is it generally considered bad HTML form to have a hypertext link
in a document that goes right to an image? It seems to me that such links
generally go to an image that's complex enough that the author intended to
fill the whole screen with it, and yet I can't think how one would provide a
text-accessible description for such an image if the image isn't contained
in anything.  Is this a reasonable way to think about this issue?

One other quick question:  Can anybody tell me where to look for a
description of the proper use of the longdesc attribute?

Jerry Weichbrodt
Received on Wednesday, 3 May 2000 23:25:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:08 UTC