- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Sun, 4 May 2008 12:15:09 +0300
- To: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
- Cc: HTML Working Group <public-html@w3.org>
On May 4, 2008, at 11:19 , Henri Sivonen wrote: > When a user of Nvu doesn't provide a textual alternative to Nvu, is > the result better or worse for the user experience of the page > reader than Nvu omitting alt and letting UAs indicate the presence > of an image in a self-consistent UA-specific way? What I'm trying to get at is this: Alt has three states: 1) Not available. 2) Specific text available. 3) Conceal the presence of image from non-graphical rendering. A single text field without an accompanying checkbox can only handle two states: #2 and either of #1 and #3. I think it's reasonable for authoring tools aimed at 'average users' to only have a single text field, but I think in that case the overall outcome is better if leaving the text field empty maps to case #1 (no alt) than to case #3 (alt=""). Also, I think some products only supporting two of the three states shouldn't preclude the spec and other products from supporting the three states. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Sunday, 4 May 2008 09:15:50 UTC