- From: James Graham <jg307@cam.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 19:11:09 +0100
- To: "Gregory J. Rosmaita" <oedipus@hicom.net>
- CC: HTML Working Group <public-html@w3.org>, wai-xtech@w3.org, scott lewis <sfl@scotfl.ca>
Gregory J. Rosmaita wrote: > scott lewis wrote, quote: > For example, what is the following image of? > > File Name: IMG20674.JPG > Size: 1024 x 768 pixels > Title: This was awesome! > Tags: vacation06 > Automatically generated @alt: "This was awesome! - IMG20674.JPG" > > I can't imagine anyone presented with that would be able to determine > that the image is a picture of a humpback whale breaching the surface > off the coast of California. Not even in the vaguest terms. > how many bytes does that simple descriptor take compared to the > picture itself? I think you've missed the point; I believe Scott was not comparing "no alt" to "useful alt text" but comparing "no alt" to "auto-generated alt-text that contains meaningless information (the filename) or information repeated from the main content". -- "Eternity's a terrible thought. I mean, where's it all going to end?" -- Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead
Received on Thursday, 16 August 2007 18:11:24 UTC