- From: Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 16:21:03 +0200
- To: "Leonard R. Kasday" <kasday@acm.org>
- cc: w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org
> http://aprompt.snow.utoronto.ca/docs/Implementation.html > > What do people think of the items under Guideline 1? Only commenting 1.1 for now. Instead of > Valid ALT text: I would call that: Evaluation of ALT text and make a H5 out of it. > Not allowed - NULL ALT value (ALT="") Was that the consensus when it was discussed on this list ? Why is it not allowed while " " is ? > Language for missing ALT text: Missing ALT text for image > Language for suspicious ALT text: Suspicious ALT text for image This is language for what usage exactly ? > Suggestions for possible ALT text: > Other checks: I would make that another heading, same level as Analysis, called "Repair of ALT text" This way, for each (sub)checkpoint, we have an Evaluation section and a Repair section, clearly delimited. > Technique 1.1.B [priority 1] Check images for LONGDESC > > IMG element should have a valid LONGDESC attribute if the image is complex. > If IMG element has no LONGDESC attribute and could be a complex > image, ask user if the image is complex and requires a long > description. I think it's OK to have a complex image which is described in running text, rather than at the other end of a longdesc URI.
Received on Monday, 21 June 1999 10:21:15 UTC