- From: Anne Pemberton <apembert@erols.com>
- Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 17:48:52 -0400
- To: Adam Victor Reed <areed2@calstatela.edu>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Adam, Your explanation of three ways to style an alt tag is very good, and better than I've gotten elsewhere. But, a while back it was decided that because there was no good way to put alt text to a graphic that contained text so that it could be used by low vision folks, and because SVG exists, using pixel images to display text was an improper use of graphics. So, I wonder if we should be considering these types of graphics as more frequent than real graphics and illustrations. When I read in the guidelines that the text equivalent (alt tag) is to be used to describe the function of a graphic, I'm inclined to use such alt tags as "Picture of George Washington" or "illustration of a ideal web page", etc. But doing so raised a fuss that the page was incomprehensible to non-visual users. On my page the kids use, I used alt tags such as "Cat in the Hat", "World Map", "Happy Star of David", etc. I was told that page is "inaccessible" ... Perhaps my problem is trying to listen to too many diverse view points and take them all seriously, but I am getting more instead of less confused about what should be put in alt tags. If I am confused, and I've been in this accessibility game for a long time, what do you think is happening with well-intentioned folks who are trying to understand and are outside this group, or new to the subject? Judging from the comments made today about the alt tags on the icons, I suspect I am not the only member of this group who is confused by what is wanted and needed. I'm almost at the point of playing J. Nielson, and dismiss all alt tags by saying I don't do them well anyway, so it's best to omit them .... (as Nielson does about graphics on his pages). <grin> Anne At 10:22 AM 5/2/01 -0700, Adam Victor Reed wrote: >On Wed, May 02, 2001 at 07:00:33AM -0400, Anne Pemberton wrote: >> Adam, >> >> I haven't looked at something in lynx for a long time, but I thought I >> remembered that lynx put the alt tag in brackets < > .... If this is no >> longer (or never was) the case, then it would be more sensible to change >> the browsers so that punctuation is added to set off the image text when it >> is presented visually. That way it will always be there whether the page >> author has heard of accessibility or not. >> >> Anne > >Actually, punctuation of alt text is often NOT a good idea, which >why browsers (lynx etc) ought not to do it. Frequently the IMG is just >a picture of text (showing the text in a fancy font or faux freehand), >in which case alt text that is NOT set off from other text is easier >to understand. Sometimes the IMG is just a fancy capital at the start >of a word, the rest of which is presented as text, so having the >browser put all ALTs "in brackets < >" would definitely interfere with >screen readers. > >Alt text should always be the contextually appropriate text >replacement for the IMG. If the IMG shows text, the replacement should >be nothing other than the text in the IMG. If the IMG serves to >explain or elaborate the regular text, then the ALT should be >parenthesiszed, just like text that serves the same function. And if >it is something distinct, like an icon or button, then it should be >set apart in brackets. > > Adam Reed > areed2@calstatela.edu > >Context matters. Seldom does *anything* have only one cause. > > Anne Pemberton apembert@erols.com http://www.erols.com/stevepem http://www.geocities.com/apembert45
Received on Wednesday, 2 May 2001 17:41:21 UTC