- From: Marghanita da Cruz <marghanita@ramin.com.au>
- Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 08:15:30 +1000
- To: Alfonso Martínez de Lizarrondo <amla70@gmail.com>
- CC: Thomas Higginbotham <thomas@thomashigginbotham.com>, public-html@w3.org
Alfonso Martínez de Lizarrondo wrote: > 2007/8/23, Thomas Higginbotham <thomas@thomashigginbotham.com>: >> I believe it to be very relevant. For example, if my sighted friend >> tells me to click the image of the flag with stars and a large, red >> asterisk in the left corner, and the alt text simply says, "Australia", >> I might not have a clue what my friend is talking about. Alt text should >> accurately describe the image to non-sighted users unless the image has >> no purpose other than decoration. Using "Australia" as a tool-tip with >> the title attribute is perfectly fine since that is the purpose of the >> title attribute. >> > > If your sighted friend tells you that, knowing that you can't see the > image, then your friend is very cruel. > > Even if you don't have problems with your vision, why would anyone > tell you to click on a picture describing it that way instead of > "click on the australian flag" "yeah, you know, the third one" ? This discussion demonstrates my argument against use of graphics for hyperlinks for both the sighted and unsighted. The best sights are those that say for example... Deustch | Espagnol | English (US) | English (Au) | Arabic in Arabic | Chinese in Chinese ... Marghanita -- Marghanita da Cruz http://www.ramin.com.au Phone: (+61)0414 869202
Received on Thursday, 23 August 2007 22:16:46 UTC