- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 14:56:33 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-hwg@idyllmtn.com>
- cc: "w3c-wai-au@w3.org" <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Yes, as an emergency repair strategy that seems best to me too. I'm not sure if it should be handled by Authoring Toolsthough - my personal preference is for it to be done by User Agents (it is one of the things they currently take responsiblity for, and is in the User Agent Accesibility Guidelines) Charles On Thu, 8 Apr 1999, Kynn Bartlett wrote: At 01:45 p.m. 04/08/99 -0400, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: >Oh, maybe so. seems these days I get lots of [something_unhelpful.gif] but >not much [IMAGE] Actually from a purely informational point of view, the former [something_unhelpful.gif] contains more POTENTIALLY useful information than either " " or [IMAGE]. Now, you and I know that they it SUCKS as ALT text, and nobody should ever use it, but looking at it practically, there is at least the potential for some useful info to be conveyed by the filename, and none by the simple [IMAGE] substitution. I would 1000% times more desire to see LEGITIMATE, well-written alternative text, but when given the choice of three evils, my prefs would run [filename.gif] [IMAGE] " ". -- Kynn Bartlett <kynn@hwg.org> President, Governing Board Member HTML Writers Guild <URL:http://www.hwg.org> --Charles McCathieNevile mailto:charles@w3.org phone: +1 617 258 0992 http://www.w3.org/People/Charles W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI MIT/LCS - 545 Technology sq., Cambridge MA, 02139, USA
Received on Thursday, 8 April 1999 14:56:39 UTC