- From: Philip & Le Khanh <Philip-and-LeKhanh@Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org>
- Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 08:42:16 +0100
- To: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- CC: joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, public-html@w3.org
Charles McCathieNevile wrote: > > On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 00:07:47 +0200, Philip & Le Khanh > <Philip-and-LeKhanh@royal-tunbridge-wells.org> wrote: > >> Joshue O Connor wrote: >> >>> The problem that you seem be indicating is the difficulty in writing >>> *good* alt text. This is an entirely different issue but an >>> important one. The best the WG can do is provide tools that make >>> this easy >> >> What sort of "tools" did you have in mind ? > > Attributes and elements - which are all that this group makes :) It's > just a question of making sure we have the right ones - that are > backward compatible, match what people do and are trying to achieve, and > so on and so forth. But attributes and elements don't "make [writing *good* alt text] easy", which is what Joshue is referring to, and the reason for my (genuine) question to him. It is still unclear to me what sort of tools /could/ make this task easy, but perhaps some clear guidance from the RNIB as to how best to describe an image might help ... Philikp Taylor
Received on Friday, 22 June 2007 07:43:39 UTC