- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 20:49:19 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- Cc: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>, wai-liaison@w3.org
On Wed, 21 May 2008, Steven Faulkner wrote: > > [Jon] wrote: > "Then you're using the same markup for two different semantics:" > > not me jon, as I said, this is what the HTML5 spec says. Actually the current text distinguishes these three cases: * Images that are purely decorative * Images that are equivalent to other text that is already in the page, and that merely provides a redundant representation in another medium * Images that are critical to the content If you provide a _label_ or _caption_ for a critical image, that is *not* the content that the image conveys. Giving alt="" for a critical image that happens to have a caption is *not* the same as the image being totally redundant with other text on the page. I agree with Jon that saying that you should provide alt="" for critical images that have captions but are otherwise not described is bad for accessibility, and I think proposing that we require that for images that are missing alternative text would be doing a disservice for users who need alternative text. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 21 May 2008 20:50:09 UTC