- From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
- Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 09:45:44 -0800
- To: love26@gorge.net (William Loughborough), "Bailey, Bruce" <Bruce_Bailey@ed.gov>, "'w3c-wai-gl@w3.org'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
At 9:33 AM -0800 12/15/00, William Loughborough wrote:
>At 12:19 PM 12/15/00 -0500, Bailey, Bruce wrote:
>>Bit-mapped words are NOT acceptable
>
>Then just don't "accept" them as words. The "problem" only arises
>where the other methods of including them on the arrow don't work.
>No reason to deny them to people who *can* see/read them. The caveat
>that overrides all these discussions is that *of course* we are
>pre-supposing alt="next".
By the way, if you follow Bruce's suggestion of using CSS to
place the "next" on the graphic, or if you simply include a
text link beside/next to the link, it might be appropriate to
actually make the alt attribute alt="".
See, if you do it otherwise, you have:
<a href="page02.html"><img src="rarrow.gif" alt="next"/></a>
<br/>
<a href="page02.html">next</a>
...which means that if graphics aren't viewed, you see/hear:
[LINK]next
[LINK]next
Which looks/sounds really bad. If you do this instead:
<a href="page02.html"><img src="rarrow.gif" alt=""/></a>
<br/>
<a href="page02.html">next</a>
Then you get this:
[LINK]next
...which makes more sense and is less confusing to someone who
doesn't see the image.
Any objections to this approach?
--Kynn
--
Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>
http://www.kynn.com/
Received on Friday, 15 December 2000 12:59:03 UTC