- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 10:26:10 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Philip Taylor <pjt47@cam.ac.uk>
- Cc: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On Mon, 5 May 2008, Philip Taylor wrote: > > Then the importantimage attribute has no remaining effect, so it can be > dropped. That just leaves the spec requiring alt to be a textual > equivalent of the image in the cases where that's possible, and a short > informative label where that is not possible. I don't like the idea of there being no way to distinguish an image consisting of just the text "Photo", or an icon of a photo, or some other command intended to indicate the functionality or label "Photo", and an image that actually _is_ a photo. That is, the following two cases: <a href="monterey.html">Monterey</a> <span>Photo</span> <span>Comments</span> <span>Review</span> <a href="monterey.html">Monterey</a> <img src=photo.icon alt=Photo> <img src=comments.icon alt=Comments> <img src=review.icon alt=Review> ...need to be expressible in a way that results in equivalent behaviour, and in a way that is clearly distinguishable from this case: <a href="monterey.html">Monterey</a> <img src=monterey.jpeg ...> ...even when the "Comments" and "Review" icons are removed from the first two cases. If we give the third example alt="Photo", then there is no way to distinguish them, and I think that's a serious accessibility problem. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 5 May 2008 10:26:44 UTC