Re: Fwd: Accessibility, discrimination, and WCAG 2.0

On Sun, 22 Oct 2000, Anne Pemberton wrote:

>     Is the only time alt tags are needed for graphics? 

Alternative content is available for (if I'm not mistaken) all the
HTML tags that include other media into a text/html document.

For IMG and AREA, for example, this alternative content takes the form
of an ALT attribute - which is rather restrictive in as much as it
cannot contain HTML markup (beyond character entities and numerical
character references).

For OBJECT, the alternative content can be fully-fledged HTML markup,
and a jolly good thing too, if the OBJECT element hadn't been made for
the most part unusable due to shortcomings of certain versions of the
Big-Two browsers.  (Disclaimer: I'm afraid I got so disheartened by
the mess that I found, that I haven't investigated it again recently.)

For client-side scripting, the alternative content is provided in
<NOSCRIPT> elements.  And so on.

Alternative content is mandated by the DTD in only some of the
situations where a syntax is available (in the various HTML versions)
for providing it.  But for accessibility and other reasons, it seems
more than just important to provide it. However, it should be provided
in the spirit of a true alternative.  I think the worst example I
encountered was ALT="turn on image loading, dummy", although ALT="this
is a picture that you can't see" came a close second.  One wonders
just what those authors had in their minds.  Well, perhaps better not.

best regards.

Received on Sunday, 22 October 2000 20:45:48 UTC