W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 2007

Re: User Testing of Accessiblity Features

From: Tim <dogstar27@optushome.com.au>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 02:47:53 +1000
Message-Id: <89a6f84dd8229a448dcc2224b7e896e9@optushome.com.au>
Cc: Alastair Campbell <ac@nomensa.com>
To: WAI Interest Group list <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>

I disagree with you on this point, it is easy to test this.

If it is just eye candy, it is not html content, call it as a 
background image from the stylesheet rules.
A stylesheet background  image has no alt text but it is also invisible 
with CSS turned off.
Isn't this what stylesheets are for formatting eye candy.

I have seven different stylesheet options each with different heading 
eye candy animated gif files.
If I embedded these images in the page html, they might think they are 
missing something.
Put eye candy in the stylesheets not in the html code.

Tim
http://www.hereticpress.com

On 29/08/2007, at 2:20 AM, Alastair Campbell wrote:

>
> Debi Orton wrote:
>> Some users wanted to know what EVERY image was so that they could
>> be sure they weren't missing information.  Others wanted only
>> meaningful images described.
>
> I've had similar experience, it's somewhat akin to the
> hardcore-usability vs holistic-experience divide.
>
>> We proposed an additional attribute (two values only) for
>> the img element to indicate whether the image was informational or
>> just eye candy.
>
> Surely that would be a null alt? ATs can then decide how they deal with
> images that have null alts, which is often by ignoring them currently.
>
> The issue at hand is not spacers, but content images that do not have
> useful alts, and no realistic means of adding them.
>
> I generally agree with Andrew, it's difficult to assess by usability
> testing, although on this point:
>> This is very important for linked images, but of questionable value
> for
>> images that are not."
>
> I think a lot of images in this scenario would be linked, often to
> larger versions of scaled-down images. It would be difficult to
> distinguish useful from not useful on that basis.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> -Alastair
>
> -- 
> Alastair Campbell         |  Director of User Experience
>
> Nomensa Email Disclaimer:
> http://www.nomensa.com/email-disclaimer.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
The Editor
Heretic Press
http://www.hereticpress.com
Email dogstar27@optushome.com
Received on Tuesday, 28 August 2007 16:48:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 10 December 2014 20:11:52 UTC