W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2004

Re: Alt is not a decription (was Re: when to use longdesc for images)

From: Matthew J. Giustino <mjg@giustiweb.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 07:33:09 -0500
Message-ID: <41C81805.3070603@giustiweb.com>
To: david@dorward.me.uk, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
I disagree, "alt" is in fact a description.

Maybe this page will clarify the "alt" attribute for this discussion.

Reference for "alt" : http://www.w3.org/WAI/wcag-curric/sam2-0.htm

Matthew J. Giustino
mjg@giustiweb.com

David Dorward wrote:

>On Tue, Dec 21, 2004 at 07:01:35AM -0500, Matthew J. Giustino wrote:
>  
>
>>   I would also like to add that you also have the "alt" attribute (alt;
>>   Defines a short description of the image)\001 available to you.
>>    
>>
>
>No, alt provides a replacement for the image, not a description. Using
>a description leads to delightful webpages like
>http://www.btplc.com/age_disability/ (picked on becuase it was the
>first bad example I could find) which has:
>
>  BT Logo - link to bt.com
>
>* Does it really matter that its a logo?
>
>* It has an <a> around it, the browser knows its a link and can tell
>the user.
>
>* Where else is something labeled "BT" likely to link? And if there is
>somewhere, then why not include that information for people who can
>see the image?
>
>  
>
Received on Tuesday, 21 December 2004 12:33:43 GMT

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