- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 12:43:46 +0300
On Apr 23, 2007, at 03:00, Andrew Sidwell wrote: > Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >> 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 actively like noalt. I fail to see why noalt would better than the absence of the alt attribute. Web apps like Flickr could generate noalt with good confidence, but I don't see how quasi-WYSIWYG tools could be none the smarter with generating noalt than they could be with omitting alt. Therefore, I think the spec should cater for the behavior of Lynx here. > Using alt="" has always seemed like a hack to > me, implying that it did have alternative text when really it didn't. Indeed. It is the obvious effect of trying to factor unrealistic ideals into conformance requirements. The harm-minimizing fix is to concede that you cannot force people to provide alt if they don't want to and make alt optional for the purposes of document conformance. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen at iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Monday, 23 April 2007 02:43:46 UTC