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

outreach : a good page to reference to

From: S. Champ <s-champ@pacbell.net>
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 14:29:03 -0700
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Message-id: <3956799F.F08E885A@postoffice.pacbell.net>
hello, and good day to you.

I came across the following page, today:

http://www.dcp.ucla.edu/resources/accessibility.htm



it looks like an excellent resource, towards which to point people (e.g.: upon
finding an instance of an accessibility-problem )



and here's something related, to see what folks might think of it :

"hello.  

	at <URIs/> 

	it was seen that you're missing some 'alt' attributes on the 'img' tags [ that
you have 'href's attatched to | that you've used, in [that|those] document(s) ,
to diagram some key concept(s) ].


	the lack of explanatory 'alt' attributes is a common problem with web-site
graphics found on the world wide web.

	 so, we have made a page about it, to explain how it is helpful to include
those 'alt' attributes on 'img' tags ( and perhaps should be mandatory {& note: 
"either your document will pass the server-side validation , or your page will
not be allowed on the www" ? would people commit to this? can we actually get
some enforcement of good practice? is this not a world-wide information system
in need of some repair?  } ). this page is available at &WAI.intro.imgAlt; 

	a concientious web-master or web-developer may also wish to look further into
the issue of web-site accessibility.  further information is available about
this, at http://www.dcp.ucla.edu/resources/accessibility.htm .





i'm still playing catch-up myself, so if any replies are made to this email,
please cc: them to the original author. ( who might not 



note:

please cc: any replies to s-champ@pacbell.net . 
( i'm not sure if the mail-list subscription has gone-through, yet. )



thank you, and hoping it helps,


-- s.c.



notes, revised:


something to chew on:

  "either your document will pass the server-side validation ,

	 or your page will not be allowed on the www" 



 would people balk at this?


 is it not time that we start enforcing some good practice?


  we would not need to be authoritarian about it, if "authoritarian" would
excite some bels-and-whistles and ignorance on the part of others. (ignorance
... ignoring the facts. )




  enforcing the PICS system should also be considered, though this is for
another topic.




  we need a central web-authority.  slackness will doubtlessly continue, if the
task is not taken up.





[&  re-iterated, for the sake of sureness: 

please cc: any replies to s-champ@pacbell.net . 
( i'm not sure if the mail-list subscription has gone-through, yet. )


]
Received on Sunday, 25 June 2000 17:26:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:13:49 GMT