W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > December 2008

Re: abbr vs alt

From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2008 07:20:03 +0100
To: "Jim Jewett" <jimjjewett@gmail.com>, sxn02@yahoo.com
Cc: www-html@w3.org, "W3C WAI-XTECH" <wai-xtech@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.ultyjpezidj3kv@zcorpandell.linkoping.osa>

On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 01:38:42 +0100, Jim Jewett <jimjjewett@gmail.com>  

> On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 4:13 PM, Sorin Schwimmer <sxn02@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>   <abbr title="Uses SmartChip technology"><img  
>> src="smartchip.jpg"></abbr>
> My first thought was that this was clearly wrong; there is no text
> inside the abbr, and no alt on the img.
> But as I thought more about it, I started to wonder if Sorin's
> solution is actually better than the current solution.  (Except, of
> course, that it isn't standard -- and I'm not sure how hard it would
> be to teach assistive technology about idioms like this.)
> Would  <img src="smartchip.jpg" alt="Uses SmartChip technology">
> really be better?  The "Uses" really isn't part of the alt, and people
> browsing *with* images would lose the valuable information about why
> that image was chosen.  (Equivalent to a key or legend on a map.)
> <abbr title="Uses"><img src="smartchip.jpg" alt="Uses SmartChip
> technology"></abbr> gets the image right, but is even more clearly
> abuse of abbr.
> <span title="Uses SmartChip technology"><img src="smartchip.jpg"></span>
> is worse because the iconic image is arguably an abbreviation, and
> because titles on span are less likely to be made available.

Under the assumption that the image under the given context means just  
'SmartChip', how about

    <img src="smartship.jpg" alt="SmartChip" title="Uses SmartChip  

Simon Pieters
Opera Software
Received on Monday, 8 December 2008 06:20:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 8 December 2008 06:20:52 GMT