W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2003

RE: JavaScript Visual Effects

From: Juan Ulloa <julloa@bcc.ctc.edu>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 09:28:23 -0800
Message-ID: <8F57F58366AF674EA546F184CF0626D2C91EC5@cascade.bcc.ctc.edu>
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org

Is it discrimination if a developer makes a website nicer to look at?  If
the image is considered simple eye candy, can't the developer simple alt tag
or even an empty alt tag?  

<devils advocate with a tad bit of sarcasm>
When you view a website that has photographs using lynx or Jaws and you run
over an image that has an alt attribute that reads "photo of Jim" or "corner
graphic"  Do you ponder about the way Jim looks like or how if the corner
graphic has a nice beveled curve.  Or does the developer have the
responsibility to be more specific with the alt descriptions.  Should the
alt attributes read: "Full body photograph of Jim: buck teeth, brown hair,
blue eyes, about 5 feet tall and dressed in denim " and "blue corner graphic
with a smooth edge connecting the left navigation color and the top
navigation bar." But maybe that's not enough, maybe I should use the
original alt attributes and apply long descriptions for each, this way I can
explain that Jim is smiling at the camera, that his denim pants have a rip
on them slightly above his left knee and that his socks don't match because
he is British.  I mean, his socks don't match, AND he is British.  Can I
include humor in my longdesc page, or do I have to stick to the facts?
</devils advocate with a tad bit of sarcasm>

  Juan C. Ulloa

> -----Original Message-----
> From: William R Williams [mailto:wrwilliams@fs.fed.us]
> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 9:03 AM
> To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> Subject: Re: JavaScript Visual Effects
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hello,
> 
> You've accomplished an adequate job in the alt statement of describing the
> process of presenting the 3 photographs on neaglesrock.com. Still, I have
> some difficulty anytime one indicates, as you have, that no important
> information is conveyed in the image(s). If this is the case, why is the
> photo there in the first place?
> 
> In fact, doesn't it seem a discriminatory practice to have the image
> "viewable" to those who can actually see it on-screen but to indicate to
> others that no important information is presented therein?
> 
> I understand that "timeliness" of information is an important
> accessibility
> concern; yet, it seems to me that a workable solution for this
> presentation
> is to simply link to a "web page" that contains the 3 separate photos and
> meaningful alts or descriptions in context. I've done exactly that for a
> similar presentation; i.e., a randam photos Javascript:
> 
> http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/about/index.shtml
> http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/about/op-foos.html
> 
> Bill Williams
Received on Thursday, 20 November 2003 12:28:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:13 GMT