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

Re: Tagging question...

From: Melinda Morris-Black <melinda@ink.org>
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2000 16:26:18 -0500
Message-ID: <393C1AFA.DA6B3B91@ink.org>
To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
CC: "WAI Interest Group (E-mail)" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Actually, what I should have typed was how does Bobby or any of the verification
applications handle the empty quotes? Does it validate as compliant?

Thanks to all that have responded. I can always count on quick responses from this
group. The page Carl sent is particularly wonderful--


Information Architect
Information Networks of Kansas
FON: (785) 296-5143
PCS: (785) 550-7345
FAX: (785) 296-5563

Charles McCathieNevile wrote:

> If you don't provide some knd of alt (text, or empty quotes) then you cannot
> create valid HTML for any version since 3.2
> My preference is for empty quotes when there is nothing useful to say about
> the image (in terms of its function - if you want to add a title or longdesc,
> then feel free).
> Charles McCN
> On Mon, 5 Jun 2000, Melinda Morris-Black wrote:
>   I've heard two schools of thought on alt tagging images. I'd appreciate a
>   definitive answer, if one exists on this issue.
>   1st school: Alt tag every image, no matter how insignificant.
>   2nd school: If the image is a spacer gif or decorate bullet-type element, use ""
>   (empty quotes).
>   I was told by a user of screen readers that hearing the description of redundant
>   elements was annoying, so I'm seeking clarification. Additionally, how does
>   Bobby or any of the verification applications handle the empty tags?
>   Thanks to the list for answering these very basic questions.
>   --
>   Regards,
>   Information Architect
Received on Monday, 5 June 2000 17:18:15 UTC

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