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

RE: Over-redundancy of ALT text?

From: Bailey, Bruce <Bruce_Bailey@ed.gov>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 08:34:49 -0500
Message-ID: <5DCA49BDD2B0D41186CE00508B6BEBD030042B@WDCROBEXC01>
To: "'David Holstius'" <holstius@pilot.msu.edu>
Cc: "'W3c-Wai-Ig'" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Using ALT="" in the example you cite is quite reasonable.
Please reference the current active thread at URL:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of David Holstius
> Sent: Friday, December 15, 2000 8:53 PM
> To: W3c-Wai-Ig
> Subject: Over-redundancy of ALT text?
> Supposing that I wanted to provide both iconic and textual clues on a
> navigation bar, how would I go about it?
> It seems like an idea that might be good: provide an icon of 
> a magnifying
> glass sext to the word "search", etc. Might speed up 
> identification for the
> average user as well as one with cognitive disabilities. But 
> under current
> guidelines, how does one provide meaningful "alt" text for an 
> image that's
> only there to enhance a nearby text (link)?
> Having a screen reader render "Icon: Magnifying glass", 
> "link: search", etc.
> for 5 or so icon-link pairs seems like a waste of the user's time,
> especially for something emphasizing brevity like a navbar. 
> Would using
> alt="" carry that feeling of, "I don't know what this image 
> was supposed to
> be"?
> David Holstius
> holstius@msu.edu
Received on Monday, 18 December 2000 08:35:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:10 UTC