- From: Bruce Bailey <bbailey@clark.net>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 07:27:04 -0400
- To: w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org
>From: Nir Dagan <nir@nirdagan.com> >I realy do not understand the idea behind: > >Not allowed - NULL ALT value (ALT="") >Allowed - ALT value of 1 or more spaces (ALT=" ") > >Both from a semantic/logical point of view and HTML specification >these are quite the same thing. The idea is that ALT=" " is appropriate for spacer images, while ALT="" is appropriate for "content free" images. Your point is well taken that from a semantic/logical point of view they are equivalent. I think this is the reason for any debate. Another reason for the distinction is the (perhaps incorrect) behavior of the most popular text-only browser. Lynx treats them differently. Missing ALT Lynx will treat as [LINK] or [IMAGE]. ALT="" will hide images and links from Lynx. ALT=" " will be rendered as Lynx as [ ]. >My major reservation with this guideline is that there may be out there >many people who took the effort to write accessible pages with alt="" >where appropriate, and now we tell them to revise their pages, without >any reason whatsoever. ALT="" is really only an issue for links. There is agreement that ALT="" is often appropriate (and even prefered to some other choices). The current debate is the behavior of authoring agents. The authoring agents should NOT start with ALT="" since this would encourge bad content. The warnings that an authoring agent generates could be more strict than a HTML/WCAG validator.
Received on Thursday, 24 June 1999 07:27:39 UTC