- From: Jukka K. Korpela <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
- Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 21:02:08 +0300 (EEST)
- To: www-validator@w3.org
On Wed, 5 Oct 2005, David Dorward wrote: > The text equivalent for something decorative could easily be > considered to be a null string. Indeed, but even a decorative image could have a title attribute, for those interested in knowing what it contains. On the other hand, _enigmatic_ images, even as decorations, might be considered as distractions and confusing. This discussion seems to indicate that the banana peel is somewhat enigmatic. (_I_ had not even noticed it. But looking at it, I could not tell what it is, and even if someone tells me it's a banana peel, I cannot tell what it _means_. Maybe it doesn't mean anything, but why is it there then?) The last guideline in WCAG 1.0 is: "Guideline 14. Ensure that documents are clear and simple." -- Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Received on Wednesday, 5 October 2005 18:02:43 UTC