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

Re: Macromedia not getting accessibility quite right...

From: Tom Gilder <w3c@tom.me.uk>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 21:45:21 +0000
Message-ID: <2041297471.20021111214521@tom.me.uk>
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org

On Monday, November 11, 2002, 9:01:16 PM, Bob Regan wrote:
> The caveat is that the accessibility prompts must be turned on to
> work. Tom is right in saying that without the prompts, he will
> insert and image and nothing will happen.

Could it not at least add empty alt text? Or give a warning?

> So spacer images and images that require the use of the null or the
> empty alt attribute do not fit the profile of the Contribute user.

I have to say that I disagree. Many, many images inserted into content
don't require alt text, or need something other than a description of
the image - which in my opinion will tend to make users describe the
visual look of the image, instead of its meaning.

Photographs that aren't essential to the understanding of a page most
of the time simply don't need alt text. I don't see why the prompt for
alt text shouldn't allow an empty string.

> The term description was intended to provide a less technical way of
> understanding the term in the absence of training for those trying
> with less of a technical background.

I have to say that coming up with a good non-technical label for alt
text is difficult. "Textual replacement" was the best I could come up
with, and that isn't too good. Personally I'd have thought inserting a
title attribute for a description would be more appropriate.

Maybe it would be best to have a little bit of information as to what
makes good alt text, or links to tutorials?


Thanks
-- 
Tom Gilder
http://tom.me.uk/
Received on Monday, 11 November 2002 16:45:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:07 GMT