- 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