Re: null alt revisited

...thus my point that you need to observe both types of users. Establish
some basis for creating the guideline. Perhaps IBM has done this already?
I just think that guidelines that are as debatable as this one need a
foundation to work from. Otherwise these discussions are endless circles of
opinions and not established criteria. (By the way, I'm not saying that the
guidelines as a unit are debatable. Just this particular guideline).

- Mike





At 11:28 AM 4/8/1999 -0700, Kynn Bartlett wrote:
>At 02:16 p.m. 04/08/99 -0400, Mike Paciello wrote:
>>What bothers me about this conversation is that those participating are all
>>people with sight. I think the discussion is almost pointless until you
>>properly observe and study the user's experience. 
>
>At risk of repeating myself and at larger risk of being misunderstood,
>I will again point out that accessibility is for everyone :), not
>just one set (be that "people who can see" or "people who can't
>see" or whatever) and thus my statements (or anyone's statements) on
>what makes the web more useful for _them_ should be as valid as anyone
>else's statements. :)
>
>So I'm saying that as a non-graphics-using web surfer, I have _this_
>opinion.  Which, yes, is just an opinion, but then so is everyone
>else's, including blind folks.  Sure, I want to hear their opinions,
>but for _my_ special needs -- using a browser without graphics --
>this is what I feel I'd like. :)
>
>I hope the PC police don't shoot me.  Remember, accessibility for
>everyone!  Accessibility for everyone!  aaaaaa they're coming to
>take me aawaaaaaaaay
>

Received on Thursday, 8 April 1999 14:51:53 UTC