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

RE: User Testing of Accessiblity Features

From: Alastair Campbell <ac@nomensa.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 09:43:05 +0100
Message-ID: <DBE13196215CF743A3F921EBB877264A28A2DA@saturn.intranet.nomensa.com>
To: "Tighe K. Lory" <tkl02@health.state.ny.us>
Cc: "WAI Interest Group list" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>, "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>

Tighe K. Lory wrote:
> An example would be a stockphoto of a person ...
> Putting in alt text would just clutter up what the screen reader says, and
> I think make the site less useable.  

And my colleague Léonie would argue that if the image conveys something (even "just" emotive), then she would like to know it's there and what it is supposed to represent.

That demonstrates the hard-core usability vs holistic experience divide quite nicely.

Andrew wrote:
> but would help users who have some vision and use a screen reader and 
> magnifier, so they'd be able to see the enlarged image.

Good point, I was just thinking in terms of whether something should be required or not, and whether having a link really made that much difference overall. 

Personally, I'm still of the opinion that accessibility guidelines should require a replacement text. I'm just not sure that HTML specs should, unless they are required to take accessibility guidelines into account.

Is that the case?

Kind regards,


Alastair Campbell         |  Director of User Experience

Nomensa Email Disclaimer:
Received on Thursday, 30 August 2007 08:43:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:36 UTC