Re: Discussion Action 54: First draft of the rewrite of "The img element"

Hi Debi,

Thank you very much for your thoughts and comment on the action 54 first draft.

It is great that you point out specific text and your rationale behind
your proposed change. Much appreciated.

Best Regards,

On Tue, May 20, 2008, Debi Orton <>  wrote:

> Hello,
> I realize that I am late in responding to this thread. Thanks to Steve,
> Laura, et. al. for putting this together.
> However, I would like to add my voice to those of the workgroup who have
> advocated for requiring an alt attribute for the img element.  I work with
> several AT users who rely heavily on the alt attribute to find out what
> information they may be missing when a page includes images, and I've seen
> their frustration when no such information is provided.
> Considering what it provides for those users who need it, it's a small
> imposition on developers.
> I have one comment regarding the Complex Data Image advice
> (
> A couple of years back, I was working on a project that posted artwork on
> the Internet.  The question arose as to whether description would be
> meaningful to non-visual people, so I posed it to a listserv of assistive
> technology users who provided feedback on web sites from their perspective.
>  Surprisingly, I heard from several individuals with vision impairments who
> said 'yes.'  They had been born sighted, and said that given an adequate
> description, they were able to visualize the posted artwork.
> My reason for sharing that anecdote is that the heading for that section is
> "Complex Data Images" seems to imply that the only complex images that
> warrant a detailed description are those representing the interpretation of
> data.  I suggest that non-data-dependent complex images should also be
> included.
> Debi Orton/

Laura L. Carlson

Received on Wednesday, 21 May 2008 12:22:33 UTC