Re: there are markup options [was: Re: img/alt summary attempt]

Ian Hickson 08-04-16 00.55:   ­  
> On Wed, 16 Apr 2008, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
> > Ian Hickson 08-04-15 21.09:   ­  
> > > On Tue, 15 Apr 2008, Al Gilman wrote:
> > > 
> > > The problem is that there are _three_ states, not two:
> > > 
> > >  1. Image is not important. (alt="")
> > >  2. Image is important, alternative text is available. (alt="...")
> > >  3. Image is important, alternative text is not available.
> > > 
> > > Case 3 is the one we are discussing. Cases 1 and 2 are well understood and
> > > nobody is suggesting changing them.
> > 
> > What do you exactly mean by "unavailable"?
>
> I mean that the person generating the page (e.g. Flickr) has no idea what 
> the image represents, only that it's important.
>   

We have usually many ways of telling that something is important. A "1" 
can mean that it is very important.

> > I ask because In another message you said that:
> >
> > > Ian Hickson wrote:
> > >   
> > > > > The only actual solution suggestion I see there is alt="1", 
> > > > > alt="2", etc, but it is unclear how that would improve 
> > > > > accessibility.
> > 
> > So, if you see the solution alt=1, alt=2, does that mean that 
> > alternative text **is** available? Or does it mean that it is 
> > unavailable?
>
> As I said in that message and in messages following it, alt="1" would be a 
> bad choice for alternative text as it would hurt accessibility. The image 
> doesn't represent "1". We don't know what it represents. That's the 
> problem.
>   

Yes, I saw that you said so. But I don't think I agree. And image of a 
"cat" doesn't only represent "cat". It can reprsent my number one. It 
can represent the first image on that page, in that stream, of that day etc.

If you need aditional stuffing, you put it into title. Or in the caption.
-- 
lh

Received on Tuesday, 15 April 2008 23:27:05 UTC