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

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

From: david poehlman <david.poehlman@handsontechnologeyes.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 08:59:45 -0500
Message-ID: <001401c4e765$5b2aa0d0$6401a8c0@DAVIDPC>
To: <david@dorward.me.uk>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>

I personally would love to see a way to have the code Identify a link in 
something other than color for instances where color is not available, but 
not in an alt tag.

Johnnie Apple Seed

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Dorward" <david@dorward.me.uk>
To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2004 7:38 AM
Subject: Re: Alt is not a description (was Re: when to use longdesc for 
images)



On Tue, Dec 21, 2004 at 07:33:09AM -0500, Matthew J. Giustino wrote:
>    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

That, I think, needs rewriting.

Alt is a replacement. _Sometimes_ (maybe even often) a description of
the image is a good replacement, but not always.

Certainly I think that the second example should be changed, browsers
already announce links when they hit <a> elements with href
attributes, stating that the link is a link is redundant and wasteful.


-- 
David Dorward                                      http://dorward.me.uk
Received on Tuesday, 21 December 2004 14:00:29 GMT

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