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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:44:31 UTC