- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 13:54:38 -0700
On Apr 22, 2007, at 2:48 AM, Kornel Lesinski wrote: > On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 01:26:55 +0100, Jon Barnett > <jonbarnett at gmail.com> wrote: > >> By "entirely omitted alt", do you still only mean WYSIWYG >> editors? If not, I agree. The distinction would be as follows: >> (1) <img src="obvious.jpg" alt="obvious"> - This image represents >> text, >> particularly the word "obvious". Lynx should replace it with the >> word >> "obvious" and do nothing else. >> (2) <img src="gallery2.jpg"> The image is part of the content and >> doesn't represent text. Lynx should indicate that the image is >> missing and offer a way to download it > > I'm a bit worried about this one - authors too often forget (or > don't care) to add alt attribute, and this case gives it a > different meaning. > > I think that for (2) there should be either magic alt value or some > way of specyfing that alt was intentionally omitted, and not > forgotten (special classname? presence of title attribute?). How about: <img src="gallery2.jpg" alt=""> -- image could be omitted without changing the meaning of the document (screen readers or text-only browsers could just skip it) <img src="gallery2.jpg" noalt> -- image cannot be omitted without changing the meaning, but no text equivalent is available (screen readers or text-only browsers / mail clients should give some indication that an image is there) I'm not sure I like that better than just omitting alt entirely, but I thought I'd throw it out there. Regards, Maciej
Received on Sunday, 22 April 2007 13:54:38 UTC