- From: Alan J. Flavell <flavell@a5.ph.gla.ac.uk>
- Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 17:30:06 +0000 (GMT)
- To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@fas.harvard.edu>
- cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
On Sat, 27 Feb 1999, L. David Baron wrote: > In the introduction to [1], you say: > > User agents can render "alt" text as a tool tip, thus providing > additional information to the general populace. > > I think recommending that alt text be rendered as a tooltip is a bad > idea, since it will encourage authors to write alt text that is > suitable for a tooltip Well spotted. I'd like to support your objection to that wording. I'm sorry that I haven't had the opportunity to follow the blow-by-blow drafting of these documents; I'm actually still uneasy about this too: providing a short description of the image's function via the "alt" attribute I'd much prefer something like "providing a textual substitute for the image's function...". That word "description" seems to cover all kinds of blunder that are seen in practice in ALT texts. Again in the Techniques document (section 1.2): A text equivalent (or alternative text) describes the function or purpose of content. Again this word "describes". To my way of thinking, the alternative text is a textual alternative or replacement for the function. Calling it a "description" seems to me to be too indirect. It isn't a "description of a function": when done properly, it "provides the function", "serves as the function", or some phrase like that; the only difference is that the original provides the function by means of an image, the alternative, by means of text. I wouldn't call the text a "description" of the image, any more than the image is an illustration of the text! They're both supposed to be doing the same job, just in alternative fashion. The rest of that paragraph in the techniques document: A text equivalent should not describe visual appearance or how something sounds. For example, if an image of a magnifying glass is used for a search button, the alt-text would be "Search" rather than "Magnifying glass". is perfectly fine, on the other hand. best regards
Received on Sunday, 28 February 1999 12:30:11 UTC