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

Re: Alternative text

From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 14:06:36 +0000
Message-ID: <20061110140636.859km7nlv2isko8k@www.splintered.co.uk>
To: Matt Lee <matt.lee@nhs.net>
Cc: WAI Interest Group <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>

Quoting Matt Lee <matt.lee@nhs.net>:

> Is there any information that is not set in stone regarding alternative
> text for images, (ie. alt attributes)?
> Currently, there seem to be a few different schools of thought on the
> subject:-

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.  
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?

Patrick H. Lauke
re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
[latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk
Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
Received on Friday, 10 November 2006 22:03:33 UTC

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