Re: spaces and alt-text. proposal for the ERT.

Phil and Charles,
I have reworked my proposal. does this cover your suggestions and questions?

<proposal>
1. Flag images with:
* the IMG attribute alt="", alt=" ", and alt="&nbsp;" (or alt="&#160;")
* OBJECT (of type="image/gif" or "image/png" etc.) that has no text content.
(Note that OBJECTs of other types should be handled elsewhere in the ERT 
document.)

2. If the image is part of a link that has text (e.g., <a 
href="home.html"><img src="button.gif" alt=" ">Refer to our home page</a>) 
this is o.k.

3. If the image is not part of a link, query the author for the use of the 
image.

3a. If the author identifies the image as a space between words and those 
words should not be separated, advise them to use &nbsp; (or alt="&#160;") 
instead of an image.

3b. If the image is a space that is used to format the layout of text, 
advise them to use style sheets, IMG alt=" ", or spaces in the content of 
OBJECT.

3c. If the author indicates the image has a function, advise the author to 
provide a functional text equivalent and if necessary a longer description.

3d. If the image is purely decorative and has no meaning to the content of 
the page, advise them to provide either brief descriptive text, that they 
handle it as a "space" (see 3b), and suggest that they may also want to 
provide a longer description of the image (on IMG with the "longdesc" 
attribute or as text in the content of OBJECT).

Exceptions to this rule are image effects that could be created with style 
sheets, such as graphical list bullets. Advise authors to use style sheets. 
(See examples in the WCAG 1.0 Techniques document).
</proposal>

How does an author know when to do what for 3d?

An example situation.  I have a page where My Company's logo is displayed 
several times.  The first use is a link to our home page.  The text content 
is, "My Company's home page."  I'm very proud of how detailed we made the 
logo, so I provide a longer description of it.  On the bottom of the page 
we provide a row of the logos - the same image over and over again.  It's a 
branding presentation effect.  The first logo has the text equivalent "My 
Company" the rest have a space. I do describe the effect for my friends who 
used to have sight because I think I can describe it well enough for them 
to form a mental image.

This is the "extremely friendly" version.

the "basic" would be:
I have a page where My Company's logo is displayed several times.  The 
first use is a link to our home page.  The text content is, "My Company's 
home page."  On the bottom of the page we provide a row of the logos - the 
same image over and over again.  It's a branding presentation effect.  They 
all have a space for a text equivalent.

I don't see a clear algorithm for how to walk an author through the 
decisions.  Ideas?

--w

At 07:15 PM 12/6/99 , Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>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!)

<>
wendy a chisholm (wac)
world wide web consortium (w3c)
web accessibility initiative (wai)
madison, wisconsin (madcity, wi)
united states of america (usa)
tel: +1 608 663 6346
</>

Received on Tuesday, 7 December 1999 12:42:38 UTC