W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > wai-xtech@w3.org > November 2007

Re: Request for PFWG WAI review of Omitting alt Attribute for Critical Content

From: Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 12:29:38 +0000
Message-ID: <711a73df0711150429ofbb646eo1da23ee318899300@mail.gmail.com>
To: joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie
Cc: wai-xtech@w3.org

Just picking up on one assumption Joshua.

On 15/11/2007, Joshue O Connor <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie> wrote:

> > *  function and need for @alt=""
> >
> > I think that the WAI would say an example where an image is
> > an interpretation of the accompanying text material is an
> > inappropriate use for @alt="".  This obscures the point that
> > there are cases where *no text equivalent* is the right
> > text equivalent.  Conventionally, this has been encoded
> > @alt="".
>
> These are cases where the user experience is in no way diminished by the
> lack of an accessible text alternative, so yes. In as much as the user
> can already glean sufficient information for the text within the document.

As a document author you might be able to make that judgment.
As a reader how can you know that that assessment has been made?

The comparison is an author who is lazy and his tool inserts alt="" by default.
The other is  the conscientious author who does the same affirmatively
knowing that the surrounding text provides the same information?

'no text equivalent' as alt text at least says something, perhaps still
leaving the reader edgy that he/she has missed something.

'no text equivalent needed' is a bit cocky IMO, even if true according
to the author; perhaps a shorter version of
'image information provided in associated text' is an improvement?

regards


-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk
Received on Thursday, 15 November 2007 12:29:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 13:15:44 GMT