W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2011

Re: Null alt tags for decorative images - Technique H67

From: Devarshi Pant <devarshipant@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2011 14:38:10 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJGQbjsozqhnvq9Avc32G=OanaqYW14StNrOxtCzrFAUEO=wXw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Userite <richard@userite.com>
Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Richard,

Your client is aware that a decorative image should have an alt attribute
value of an empty string--which says something about the client. They are
taking a decision based on H67, and we should respect that. I would give
that largish picture an empty string, if they were my client. As someone
pointed out before, if the adjoining text has information about the image,
an Alt= should be okay.

Thanks,

Devarshi

On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 5:14 PM, Userite <richard@userite.com> wrote:

>   I am having real problems with a client who insist that certain images
> are decorative and can therefore be given a null alt tag as per H67. I can
> accept that a squiggly line or fancy text box border is decorative, but not
> a largish picture of a building (no particular building, just a museum type
> facade).
> I really think that it is time to remove H67 as a technique, either a
> non-text item such as an image should have a text equivalent, or it should
> not be imported by HTML but be treated as styling and imported via CSS so
> that it is totally ignored by screen readers etc. This way there is no need
> for subjective discussions.
>
> Any thoughts ?
> Richard
> Richard Warren
> Userite
>
Received on Thursday, 3 November 2011 18:38:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 3 November 2011 18:38:41 GMT