- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 19:15:21 -0500 (EST)
- To: pjenkins@us.ibm.com
- cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org, w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org
Although I agree that a brief description in alt values is redundant, I would suggest that a longdesc is often appropriate. However I feel that it would make more sense to use a more powerful construct than "img" anyway, which would allow for the selection of multiple content types. Charles McCN On Mon, 6 Dec 1999 pjenkins@us.ibm.com wrote: Wendy, >3b. If the image is purely decorative and has no meaning to the content of >?the page, advise them to provide a brief descriptive text and suggest that >they may also want to link to a longer description of the image with the >"longdesc" attribute. seems to conflict with >3d. If the author indicates the image has a function, advise the author to >provide a functional text equivalent and if necessary link to a longer >description. Why would we encourage "longdesc" for images that are purely decorative and have no meaning? I would move 3b to the end of the ordered list. After checking if it's part of a link, or used for spacing or formatting, then finally if it's just a "purely decorative" image, then shouldn't alt="" be O.K.? For example, I have a image of a LOGO several places on a page purely for visual effect, but don't want to "clutter up" the audio by having it rendered every time in-line with the HTML, I the author may choose to turn off the audio by using the alt="" on the redundant images. What I do with my eyes, skip over and ignore the purely decorative images, can only be supported by the screen reader by me the author using alt="". The user can always get the source HTML file and review the image file used if curious, but brief description and longer description should not be encouraged for redundant decorative images. Regards, Phill Jenkins, --Charles McCathieNevile mailto:charles@w3.org phone: +61 409 134 136 W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI 21 Mitchell Street, Footscray, VIC 3011, Australia (I've moved!)
Received on Monday, 6 December 1999 19:15:23 UTC