Re: Request for review of alt and alt value for authoring or publishing tools

Jim Jewett 08-04-16 03.16:   ­  
> (several lists dropped from Cc)
>
> Ian wrote:
> > ...while providing no less information -- and arguably
> > more, since in the  second case the image-disabled
> > user can't easily distinguish it from this third case:
>
> >    <figure>
> >     <p>I snapped this photo the other day while walking around the
> >     Googleplex and saw Ian Hickson working at his desk.</p>
> >     <legend>I snapped this photo the other day while walking around the
> >     Googleplex and saw Ian Hickson working at his desk.</legend>
> >    </figure>
>
> > ...which, per spec, is semantically equivalent.
>
> Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
> > A third bad example, again talking about the fact -
> > yest - that it is possible to have alt content without
> > having the embedded content in place.
>
> > But, why would anyone drop to place a photo inside
> > <figure> or forget the SRC inside <IMG>? How often
> > does that happen? Is it a real problem?
>
> It is pretty common for src links to be broken.
>
> It is fairly common that I can get the image anyhow by using
> view-source and hand-guessing the URL.  I'll only know to try that if
> I know there was an image that got replaced with alt, rather than an
> original paragraph.
>
> So I might well be better off if the image has no alt of its own, and
> defaults to using the legend with Assistive Tech, but showing 

A screen reader user suffers less from a broken SRC link than a sighted 
users does. After all, for the screen reader users, the ALT is the 
content, while the SRC represent the alternative content.
-- 
leif halvard silli

Received on Thursday, 17 April 2008 01:18:19 UTC