- From: Victor Tsaran <vtsaran@yahoo.com>
- Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 17:46:40 -0800 (PST)
- To: "Leonard R. Kasday" <kasday@acm.org>, w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org
I think, this is a good argument as well. If we start to rely on automatic conversion tools, web designers will abandon accessibility problems at all. At least if designers would give meaningful names to their images, like help.gif or options.gif, one could try to guess the content of the image by cutting off the extion of the file. I use this technique lot in an ttempt to guess the destination of the image on the page. Best regards, Victor ---"Leonard R. Kasday" <kasday@acm.org> wrote: > > Al Gilman wrote: > > >So I see application for the text-equiv techniques on both the > >author and user side, and I see the author scenario encompassing > >both automatic suggestions and manual judgement and rewording. > > LRK:: > > Well, logically I have to agree with that, but, to reveal a personal bias > here, are there any cases where the automatic text would be as good as text > the author wrote him or herself, aside from > > - copying text link to a ALT text for image or image map area with same URL > - and visa versa of the above > - all-text image read by OCR (tho even there an error > could produce a real knee slapper) > > I'm worried that authors would get into habit of using the automatically > generated text in cases where it's inferior to what they could easily do > themselves. > > Len > ------- > Leonard R. Kasday > Institute on Disabilities/UAP at Temple University, Philadelphia PA > email: kasday@acm.org > telephone: (215} 204 2247 > > == Hi, visit me at: http://tsarnet.home.ml.org _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Received on Monday, 26 October 1998 20:43:11 UTC