>> An image of a planned escape route out of a >> building in case of a fire that has an alt attribute of "a picture" >> would surely be bordering on negligent if not criminally >> irresponsible. >> > >This is where "compliance" and usability part company. But of course, you >*are* correct, it would be criminal, yet the way things are currently worded >(especially Section 508, which is a Standard, as opposed to WCAG which is a >guideline), "a picture" would satisfy the requirement. Hmm, that's not my opinion. When I read 508: § 1194.22 Web-based intranet and internet information and applications. (a) A text equivalent for every non-text element shall be provided (e.g., via "alt", "longdesc", or in element content). I focus on the term "equivalent". The alt text of "a picture" does not satisfy, even a weak definition of "equivalent", So it's not only non compliant, it is criminal. by the way, the wording is almost identical to WCAG 1.0 1.1 Provide a text equivalent for every non-text element (e.g., via "alt", "longdesc", or in element content). and gratefully WCAG 2.0 has normatively defined some terms so at least there is a documented definition: alternate version version that provides all of the same information and functionality and is as up to date as any non-conformant content Regards, Phill Jenkins IBM Worldwide Accessibility Center http://www.ibm.com/ableReceived on Friday, 20 October 2006 07:05:08 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:25 GMT