ALT vs. TITLE usage in WAI logo example

At 09:25 AM 2000-12-29 -0500, Leonard R. Kasday wrote:
>Hmmm.  Speaking of small problems with the logo, presently the image has
>
>ALT="Level Double-A conformance icon, W3C-WAI Web Content Accessibility 
>Guidelines 1.0"
>
>Following the principle that ALT should be an equivalent for what the 
>sighted person sees, would it not be better to have
>
>ALT="W3C: WAI triple A, WCAG 1.0."
>
>The longer description is an explanation that in principle is seen by 
>everyone, so it should be the TITLE
>
>TITLE="Level Double-A conformance icon, W3C-WAI Web Content Accessibility 
>Guidelines 1.0"
>

AG:

I have to admit to a violent negative reaction to this suggestion.

Both of the above spellings for ALT text satisfy the sense of 'equivalent' as
used in checkpoint 1.1.  It is a loose equivalence and they both meet this
loose criterion.  It is an equivalence of sense; not of spelling.  And at the
more superficial level that you are evaluating 'equivalence' in the above, the
answer is _no_, the ALT should not be 'equivalent' to the visual presentation
_in those terms_.  It should be _different_ in those terms so as to be both a)
equivalent at the deeper level and b) effective in the alternative
presentation.  The ALT text as understood when heard should be equivalent to
what the sighted user understands on seeing the visual logo.  "What the
sighted
user _sees_" is too medium-specific to be the base for equivalence
comparison. 
"What the sighted user _learns_" is closer.

The fact is that telegraphic diction such as exemplified by the suggested
alternative ALT above works in a visual environment where the user can random
scan over the component elements, and does not work well in a serial pass over
the content such as in synthetic speech.  The more expanded version is more
likely to be comprehensible when read aloud than is the series of cryptic
blurps.

I have to realize that the intensity of my reaction is probably because the
distinction is subtle and sustaining a consensus for any resolution of such a
subtle distinction is tenuous.

Backing off from the initial reaction, I think that the meta-guideline that
this suggestion violates is that "the ALT text should be easy to grasp
(follow)
when read aloud in context."

This may sound like "the ALT text should be designed for how it appears in
Lynx."  That is my home base of experience and bias.  But what the Lynx
display
communicates to me, the sighted, is some of what make the ALT text
effective or
ineffective communication in serial speech presentation.  Which we do need to
care about, even while it is not the only presentation we want to make
effective.

Al

>Len
>
>
>At 02:07 PM 12/26/00 -0500, Bailey, Bruce wrote:
>>I hesitate to bring it up, but there is also the issue that the official
>>versions have some flaws.  There was the issues with .png files being served
>>instead of .gif (I think that's been resolved) and coming up blank with some
>>popular browsers.  The WAI button don't use the "browser safe" palette and
>>are larger (in bit depth and pixel size) than they need to be. The WAI
>>conformance icons also don't match up nicely with the other W3C banner
>>buttons (the "W3C" portion is too small).  Take a look at the bottom of the
>>W3C home page to see what I mean.  It's been about a year since I first
>>pointed these picayune problems out.  Any chance they will be fixed?
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org
[<mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org%5DOn>mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org]On
>> > Behalf Of Leonard R. Kasday
>> > Sent: Monday, December 18, 2000 3:13 PM
>> > To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
>> > Subject: local copies of WAI logo
>> >
>> >
>> > Here's what I hope is a really simple question.
>> >
>> > The present conformance page
>> >
<http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG1-Conformance.html>http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG1-Co
nformance.html
>> >
>> > says to
>> > reference the copy of the logo on the w3c servers
>> >
>> > <A
href="<http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG1A-Conformance>http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG1A
-Conformance"
>> > title="Explanation of
>> > Level A Conformance">
>> > <IMG height="32" width="88"
>> > src="<http://www.w3.org/WAI/wcag1A>http://www.w3.org/WAI/wcag1A"
alt="Level
A conformance
>> > icon, W3C-WAI
>> > Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0"></A>
>> >
>> >
>> > Is there any problem in simply coping the logo onto the page?
>> >  In other
>> > words, the only difference would be to replace src with something like
>> >
>> > src="images/wcag1A.gif"
>> >
>> > which refers to the local copy on the site?
>> >
>> > Len
>
>--
>Leonard R. Kasday, Ph.D.
>Institute on Disabilities/UAP and Dept. of Electrical Engineering at Temple 
>University
>(215) 204-2247 (voice)                 (800) 750-7428 (TTY)
><http://astro.temple.edu/~kasday>http://astro.temple.edu/~kasday        
<mailto:kasday@acm.org>mailto:kasday@acm.org
>
>Chair, W3C Web Accessibility Initiative Evaluation and Repair Tools Group
>http://<http://www.w3.org/>www.w3.org/WAI/ER/IG/
>
>The WAVE web page accessibility evaluation assistant: 
><http://www.temple.edu/inst_disabilities/piat/wave/>http://www.temple.edu/
inst_disabilities/piat/wave/
>

Received on Friday, 29 December 2000 10:43:21 UTC