- From: Christophe Strobbe <christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be>
- Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 15:29:44 +0200
- To: W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>
At 21:31 14/05/2008, Henri Sivonen wrote: >On May 14, 2008, at 21:02, Matt Morgan-May wrote: >>(...) >>Bogus alt text is covered under WCAG, anyway. > >I'm having trouble finding the right part of WCAG. Easy: in success criterion 1.1.1 of WCAG 2.0: "All non-text content that is presented to the user has a text alternative that serves the equivalent purpose, except for the situations listed below." <http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/CR-WCAG20-20080430/#text-equiv-all> Bogus alt does not meet this criterion. Via "Understanding Success Criterion 1.1.1" <http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20080430/text-equiv-all.html> one can also find Failure F30: "Failure of Success Criterion 1.1.1 and 1.2.1 due to using text alternatives that are not alternatives (e.g. filenames or placeholder text)" <http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20080430/F30.html>, which covers a very common type of bogus alt. "Bogus alt" wouldn't constitute an "equivalent" according to WCAG 1.0. Best regards, Christophe Strobbe --- Please don't invite me to LinkedIn, Facebook, Quechup or other "social networks". You may have agreed to their "privacy policy", but I haven't. -- Christophe Strobbe K.U.Leuven - Dept. of Electrical Engineering - SCD Research Group on Document Architectures Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 bus 2442 B-3001 Leuven-Heverlee BELGIUM tel: +32 16 32 85 51 http://www.docarch.be/ Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm
Received on Thursday, 15 May 2008 14:32:38 UTC