- From: Liam Quinn <liam@htmlhelp.com>
- Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 18:50:54 -0500
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 12:56 PM 05/02/98 -0800, Charles (Chuck) Oppermann wrote: >This message, along with Daniel's interpretation of the use of TITLE and ALT >raises the issue of clear standardization. > >To me, ALT is always a textual description of the image ("ALTernative >representation"). TITLE is related to function. To me, it's exactly the opposite. ALT is ALTernative text, and so should act as a complete alternative to the image. A description of the image is a supplement, not an alternative. An alternative is something that takes the place of something else, and so the ALT text should replace the image. >It's a shame that with <AREA> the guidelines have already converted the >original meaning of ALT into a more functional role, this is exactly what >TITLE was intended for. Again, I take the opposite view. Do you have a source that describes the "original meaning of ALT"? I've never found the W3C Recommendations adequate in their description of ALT. >The problems arise with image only links. Where does TITLE go? The <IMG> can have a TITLE describing the graphic, and the <A> can have a TITLE describing the link. Note that TITLE with elements like A is *descriptive* rather than *functional*. The link itself gives the function implicitly. >I say as >part of the <A> tag, since the *function* of the image is where it's >directing you to (the link). > >For example: > ><A HREF=foo.htm TITLE="Enter my world"> ><IMG SRC=globe.gif ALT="Spinning Globe picture"> ></A> I'd go with <A HREF=foo.htm TITLE="Enter my world"><IMG SRC=globe.gif ALT="Enter my world" TITLE="Spinning globe"></A> Think about how today's text-only browsers would present this: _Enter my world_ rather than _Spinning Globe picture_ Using ALT functionally provides the necessary information for text-only browsers, while using it descriptively provides a cruel reminder to the text-only user that the Web doesn't like him. Of course one could argue that text-only browsers have the implementation backwards if you agree with Chuck's interpretation of ALT and TITLE. Clearly we need to decide which is which. To me, the words suggest the meaning I have described, but I recognize that others interpret this differently. So what about looking at the issue from the point of view of existing implementations? Text-only browsers and search engines use the ALT attribute as a replacement for the IMG; I assume speech browsers do the same. Since text-only browsers and speech browsers are the most important targets of browser accessibility, perhaps we should yield to these existing implementations. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQA/AwUBNNpQXfP8EtNrypTwEQJiqQCgihokTjjTgtAClDMQFQpApjG5sHYAn0GX DsaiCbH61ShjZphokv+UVGjA =tfJs -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Liam Quinn Web Design Group Enhanced Designs, Web Site Development http://www.htmlhelp.com/ http://enhanced-designs.com/
Received on Thursday, 5 February 1998 18:49:34 UTC