RE: the text in images issue [was: errata...]

This approach to having words and images available is what I prefer, except
that to make it more usable I would include the image and the text in a
single link element.

cheers

charles mccn

On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, Kynn Bartlett wrote:

  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


-- 
Charles McCathieNevile    mailto:charles@w3.org    phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative                      http://www.w3.org/WAI
Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053, Australia
September - November 2000:
W3C INRIA, 2004 Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France

Received on Saturday, 16 December 2000 02:44:53 UTC