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

Re: JavaScript Visual Effects

From: gez <gez@juicystudio.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 02:42:55 -0000
Message-ID: <007e01c3afd9$2ad08ae0$1700a8c0@juicy.com>
To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>

You can say what you like in your longdesc, but leave the British out of it.
They're jolly nice people, able to solve anything with a nice cuppa.

_____________________________
Supplement your vitamins
Web: http://www.juicystudio.com
Email: gez@juicystudio.com
Keeping developers informed!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Juan Ulloa" <julloa@bcc.ctc.edu>
To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 5:28 PM
Subject: RE: JavaScript Visual Effects


>
> 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 21:40:59 GMT

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