- From: Jon Barnett <jonbarnett@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 09:40:45 -0500
- To: "Maurice Carey" <maurice@thymeonline.com>
- Cc: "HTML Working Group" <public-html@w3.org>
n 8/17/07, Maurice Carey <maurice@thymeonline.com> wrote: > > http://my.opera.com/oedipus/albums/showpic.dml?album=212490&picture=3424812 > > The first comment... > " Backyard, towards the curb. Mouse, nicely framed, is sitting and staring > at the camera, on the stoop. The the tip its tail is resting on the doormat, > which you have cropped. The background includes the short alley, a bit of > the fence and the gate. There isn't much grass to speak of." > ...would make a very good alt value, but like most sighted people I don't > think the photographer would bother writing all that text in the alt where > they knew the overwhelming majority of their visitors would not be able to > read it (and possibly not contribute as much for SEO). > > Sighted people just don't write invisible content. > > Now had that first comment instead been the "description" of the photo and > the blog system presented it as <figure><img><caption></figure> with the > text visible for sighted people to see and blind people to still hear, then > I could imagine my clients using our CMS actually going to the trouble of > giving _almost_ every image a description. > > In the case of <figure><img><caption></figure> would alt really still be > needed? > > Is <figure><img><caption></figure> even still an option being discussed? > Sorry, there are just too many messages on this list for me to keep up. Yes, all of the examples in the draft of <img> without @alt are written as <figure><img><legend></figure> There was a suggestion to make <img> inside <figure> the only case where @alt can be omitted. That sounds like a good suggestion. I can't think of any other cases for omitting @alt at the moment. -- Jon Barnett
Received on Friday, 17 August 2007 14:41:06 UTC