- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 13:56:57 +0300
- To: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Cc: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On Jun 8, 2009, at 12:48, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: > Further, I believe that this represents an improvement in > accessibility. This is despite the common use of alt="" or some > other default meaningless text where it is inappropriate, which > actually reduces the accessibility of the particular page even in > comparison to simply leaving off alt, by actively misleading the > user. (Leaving off alt is still going to break accessibility in such > cases, it is just a slightly lesser among available evils, in a case > where it is possible to do good). Isn't alt as practiced substantially different from summary as practiced, though, in the sense that the relative incidence of good or at least passable alt is much higher than the relative incidence of good or passable summary? -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Monday, 8 June 2009 10:57:36 UTC