W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2006

Re: WCAG 1.0 or 2.0?

From: Jon Ribbens <jon+w3c-wai-ig@unequivocal.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 14:52:49 +0100
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Message-ID: <20061019135249.GC28917@snowy.squish.net>

John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu> wrote:
> Slavish adherence to a guideline does not an accessible site make -
> the easiest example to cite is the requirement for ALT text on
> images: all too often we see sites that "pass" because the content
> creator used "<img src="path to file" alt="graphic" />" -
> technically a pass, but practically useless.

While I agree with much of what you said, the above is incorrect. The
guideline says "provide a text equivalent" - and in your example, the
text is clearly not an equivalent, so it does not pass the checkpoint,
even "technically".
Received on Thursday, 19 October 2006 14:34:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:13:31 UTC