- From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
- Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 12:17:09 -0500
- To: "Leonard R. Kasday" <kasday@acm.org>, "jonathan chetwynd" <jay@peepo.com>, ssb22@cam.ac.uk
- Cc: w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org
At 07:28 AM 3/13/99 -0500, Leonard R. Kasday wrote: >Jonathan, Silas, > >I've been reviewing mail here and I think there might have been some >messages which passed between the two of you without getting on the email >list. In particular, why is it useful to turn off ALT text? I realize it >has to do with the tags popping up. But is that a problem because it's >visually distracting or because it interferes with programs that read the >screen with synthetic speech? Or some other cause? > Jonathan can correct/clarify, but this is the impression I got. We have the idiom "adding insult to injury." In Sexual Harrassment law we have the concept of "creating a hostile work environment." The image I got combined these notions. The _injury_ is, yes, un-helpful motion/change in the document. The _insult_ is that the user interface persists in flashing _words_ at the visitor who does not process words. Imagine that for the blind browser, [IMAGE] appeared not only when one encounters an inline, undocumented image in the page, but also at random as the text is being read. What I heard was that tooltips popping up words as the mouse roams the page was perceived as creating a hostile environment by non-readers. Killing the ALT text in the document is a workaround for killing the tooltip popup in the browser. This is how I understood the report. Al
Received on Saturday, 13 March 1999 12:14:05 UTC