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

Re: another alt question

From: <goliver@accease.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 12:23:18 -0800 (PST)
To: lkyoder@pacbell.net
Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Message-Id: <20020218122321.4892.c000-h009.c000.wm@mail.accease.com.criticalpath.net>
Hi Leslie
Have a look at this page
http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/dnzb_exhibs/lit/index.htm
It has got good feedback from our tester who uses a
screen reader.
Although JAWS 4.01 now supports longdesc I would stick
with D links for the moment (upgrades are expensive and
it will be a while before the majority are on 4.01)

Cheers
Graham

On Mon, 18 February 2002, "Leslie K. Yoder" wrote

> 
> I've read with great interest the discussion
regarding the purpose and
> content of alt text.  So far, the emphasis has been
on images that are
> "decorative" or supplemental in some way to the main
content of a page.
> 
> My question is this: what if the images _are_ the
content--for example, a
> photo gallery or artist's online portfolio?  My guess
is that long desc
> would be the way to go, but I'm not sure.
> 
> I'm currently working up a site for a friend who is a
graphic artist (mostly
> in the area of signage), and I've looked at several
artists' pages in the
> process. I've found, for the most part, that these
pages don't concern
> themselves with accessibility for the blind, the
reasoning apparently being
> that a blind user would have no interest in or use
for graphic arts (a
> position that I, of course, find questionable).
> 
> So I guess my question is really two-fold: Am I being
excessive in insisting
> that even a site that's predominantly visual in its
purpose be accessible?
> And what are your recommendations for alt and long
desc content in this
> particular case?
> 
> Thanks much
> Leslie
> 
> Leslie K. Yoder
> lkyoder@pacbell.net

AccEase Ltd : Making on-line information accessible
Phone : +64 9 846 6995
Email : goliver@accease.com
Received on Monday, 18 February 2002 15:23:55 GMT

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