- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 17:26:55 -0400 (EDT)
- To: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- cc: au <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
The guidelines didn't go wrong. The author went wrong, by providing inappropriate content for the images in question. This is human error. Sometime alt="" is extremely appropriate. The second human error is relying on a machine to check something it can't check. Charles On Thu, 29 Apr 1999, William Loughborough wrote: "page still gets a bobby approved when in actuality the links, which are images with alt="", are invisible." If our "AAA conformant" authoring tool put out anything that met the above description, where did we go wrong? The example cited is http://www.dors.state.md.us/test.html which I haven't tested. Bruce Bailey, who brought this up recommends: "My recommendation is that ALT="" should be illegal inside <A HREF..." -- Love. ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE http://dicomp.pair.com --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, 29 April 1999 17:26:59 UTC