- From: <kynn-eda@idyllmtn.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 16:28:46 -0800 (PST)
- To: poehlman1@home.com (David Poehlman)
- Cc: kynn-eda@idyllmtn.com, inekemaa@xs4all.nl (Ineke van der Maat), chas@munat.com (Charles F. Munat), charles@w3.org (Charles McCathieNevile), w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
David wrote: > you could put a note in the alt tag that there is a link that represents > this place on the page. There are lots of things you can do but to use > image, logo and many other things such as picture... as we have strongly > stated before is not acceptable and will continue to lead to confusion. > Till the speck for the alternative is changed, please refrain from > breaking it. Which spec does one "break" in this way, which is the only reasonable way of indicating that there is a longdesc for an image which is unseen? Is it just that the words "image" "logo" and "picture" terrify you SO MUCH that you can't bear to think that someone would use it in an alt text? The example I gave is perfectly reasonable and perfectly within spec, and I have given perfectly valid reasons for using the specific alt text I chose to use. As long as certain parties within the web accessibility community continue to insist that there are "naughty words" which should "never" be used, we will continue to have confusion. Accessibility is about a process and a mindset, not about forever banishing the word "logo" from alt text. --Kynn
Received on Wednesday, 16 January 2002 19:21:57 UTC