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 im ages)

From: Andy J. W. Affleck <aaffleck@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 10:32:14 -0500
Message-ID: <af181320412210732d30111e@mail.gmail.com>
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org

Here's an example of what I mean. One of the early Section 508
websites (I forget which) had at one time alt text that described
every piece of the graphical elements of their banner. Something along
the lines of:

"Blue circle with line extending to the right to underscore blue
header text. Blue vertical lines to right of header framing second
blue circle which...."

I can't imagine how that level of detail benefits any user.

DisabilityInfo.gov, for example, uses graphical borders around the
main content. Those, to me, are eye candy. There is no value
whatsoever in alt-ifying them and saying "Blue beveled border with
subtle drop-shadow to the right side framing content."

-A


On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 15:07:58 -0000, Katie Smith
<ksmith@no10.x.gsi.gov.uk> wrote:
>  
> 
> Speaking as a marketing person I'm not entirely sure I agree there is a
> difference between "eye candy" and "mood setting" imagery.  Making something
> visually appealing is, in itself, a mood setting action. 
> 
> I would use image and colour to: 
> 
> - Illustrate a story (therefore it should be relevant to the story) 
> - To display data in a more instant (tho not accessible) format (ie graphs) 
> - To convey the values (brand) of the organisation the website represents
> (ie, set the mood) 
> 
> Presumably, for a visually impaired user, an organisation's values and brand
> are just as important in making a decision about whether to purchase, for
> example?
Received on Tuesday, 21 December 2004 15:32:18 GMT

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