- From: Sander Tekelenburg <st@isoc.nl>
- Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 05:25:44 +0200
- To: public-html@w3.org
At 10:48 +0200 UTC, on 2007-07-30, Alfonso Martínez de Lizarrondo wrote: > Content-Type: multipart/alternative; [...] May I be so bold as to suggest we all stick to plain text? For universaility's sake ;) (In this particular case, I needed to manually fix things to indicate quote levels.) > 2007/7/30, Sander Tekelenburg <<mailto:st@isoc.nl>st@isoc.nl>: [quoting <http://www.rnib.org.uk/wacblog/articles/too-much-accessibility/too-much-accessibility-title-attributes/>] At 05:20 +0200 2007-07-31, Sander Tekelenburg wrote: >> "Screen magnification users: would have their access to information in an >> image's ALT attribute blocked by a TITLE attribute, especially, a null one." >> >> Empty title attributes are author mistakes (and should be warned for by HTML >> checkers). I don't see the relevance to @title as specced. UAs should >>provide >> access to both @alt and @title. Thus again, a UA problem, nothing to do with >> @title. > > They might not be an error but a deliberate way to work around the display >of alt as a tooltip: > You set up the page, the images nicely tagged with alt (well, not perfect >but close enough) and the client suddenly says: "hey, when I checked on my >computer all the images show some text when hovering them, I don't want >that.", so here comes an empty title to the rescue. How is that not an authoring error? It's not the author's job fix UA bugs. -- Sander Tekelenburg The Web Repair Initiative: <http://webrepair.org/>
Received on Tuesday, 31 July 2007 03:29:40 UTC