W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2002

Re: img alt text, links and titles

From: <kynn-eda@idyllmtn.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 16:28:46 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <200201170028.QAA19552@garth.idyllmtn.com>
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:00 GMT