- From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 23:18:01 +1000
- To: Steve Faulkner <sfaulkner@paciellogroup.com>
- CC: HTMLWG <public-html@w3.org>
Steve Faulkner wrote: > Can anyone provide examples of where the recommendation to omit the alt > attribute would apply? > > Please provide public URLs so that UA testing and user testing can be > conducted.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rorschach_inkblot_test That's the source of one of the examples in the spec, where it's claimed that "Sometimes there simply is no text that can do justice to an image". http://icanhascheezburger.com/ Sometimes they use alt="filename.jpg" and other times they use the image's caption. Using the caption is at least reasonable, but there seems to be no benefit for the ones that repeat the file name. I don't know why they don't use the caption for all of them. e.g. This one uses the file name: alt="128296214217657500imonurrefrig.jpg" http://icanhascheezburger.com/2007/08/30/im-on-ur-refrigemater-monitorin-ur-calorie-intakez/ This one uses the caption: alt="Strong is The Force With Yoda Cat" http://icanhascheezburger.com/2007/08/30/strong-is-the-force-with-yoda-cat/ Compare that with this lolcat site that does omit the alt attribute. http://lolcat.com/ -- Lachlan Hunt http://lachy.id.au/
Received on Friday, 31 August 2007 13:18:12 UTC