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

Re: Alternative text

From: Matt Lee <matt.lee@nhs.net>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 14:24:32 +0000
To: "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk>
Cc: WAI Interest Group <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1163168673.4766.48.camel@male-gnu>

On Fri, 2006-11-10 at 14:06 +0000, Patrick H. Lauke wrote:

> I think you've answered your own question to a certain extent: because  
> there ISN'T anything set in stone (and there couldn't be), there are  
> different schools of thought. Even asking different screen reader /  
> text browser / etc users will usually get you different answers, more  
> akin to personal preference. Personally, I tend to fall into the  
> second camp: if it's something like a photo of a member of staff on a  
> profile page, I'd treat it as visual fluff and put a null alt on it.  

Finding someone somewhere who can clarify this is hard though, as my
co-workers want to do things like adding alt text to every single image,
which is clearly incorrect.

> Of course, it's a judgement call that needs to be carefully  
> made...when is an image fluff and when does it start to become  
> meaningful content?

I think when you can read the content without the image, it would be
fluff, but if you need the image, for example a chart of sales figures,
or the image offers a snapshot, or an 'at a glance' representation of
the content, then yes, it would be worthy of being considered content.


This e-mail is confidential and privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please accept our apologies; please do not disclose, copy or
distribute information in this e-mail or take any action in reliance on its
contents: to do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Please
inform us that this message has gone astray before deleting it. Thank you
for your co-operation.
Received on Friday, 10 November 2006 14:24:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:35 UTC