- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 12:51:56 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21565
Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #1 from Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru> ---
I don't think the presence or absence of a longdesc should be used as a
determinant of whether an image is presentational.
Use case for longdesc on presentational images:
Stock photography is often included in marketing content (such as home pages,
press releases, etc). It is typically decorative, and should have alt="" in
many cases. But adding an accurate longdesc allows the photo provider to make
their content more discoverable - the legitimate sense of advertising. It also
makes it possible to get a better sense of the design aesthetic without having
seen the image, which is useful to a range of different people.
I therefore think that having a longdesc on an image with alt="" should not be
a validation error.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 3 April 2013 12:52:01 UTC