W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > wai-xtech@w3.org > April 2008

Re: Another summary of alt="" issues and why the spec says what it says

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 05:48:17 +0000 (UTC)
To: Jim Jewett <jimjjewett@gmail.com>
Cc: david.dailey@sru.edu, John Foliot <foliot@wats.ca>, HTML4All <list@html4all.org>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, wai-xtech@w3.org, Al Gilman <Alfred.S.Gilman@ieee.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0804180546330.22086@hixie.dreamhostps.com>

On Fri, 18 Apr 2008, Jim Jewett wrote:
> > Wouldn't that require that the image be described somewhere? The whole 
> > point here is that we don't know what the image is.
> Yes -- but the description, like alt text in practice, need not be 
> perfect.
> There are plenty of reasons that "good enough" alt text may not be 
> available, but no one has come up with an example where *nothing* was 
> known about the image.  You just posted your four main examples, and 
> there was indeed information.  Not as much as we would like, but quite a 
> bit more than nothing.
> You then said that information wasn't suitable for alt text, because it 
> should be in a visible element instead -- which it could be, if 
> aria-describedby were used to link the two elements.

I guess, though I don't really understand what practical benefit there is 
to linking the description to the image using aria-describedby.

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Friday, 18 April 2008 05:49:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:51:35 UTC