W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2002

Images and text equivalents

From: Chris O'Kennon <chris@vipnet.org>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 14:53:53 -0500
Message-ID: <A466B58150DD0F4FB6FE4FDEECB428F108EA1B@iexch1.vipnet.org>
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org

I apologize if this has already been discussed and my memory fails me, but
while using the new guidelines to address the accessibility standards I'm
helping to draft in the Commonwealth of Virginia, the issue of image
archives and text equivalents has been raised.  When I read checkpoint 1.1
it says - or seems to say to me - that unilaterally any non-text element has
to be expressed in text.  But the wording includes the phrase, "...that can
be expressed in words..." which may be unclear to many.  "can be expressed
in words" seems to need more clarification, as there's a bit too much wiggle
room.  I can see images [1] getting ALT tags of "a house" or "library image"
under the assumption that such simple descriptions are sufficient to
describe art prints or historical images.

Is there any way to put more teeth in this checkpoint?  I'd also hate to get
into the argument of whether an image can be "expressed in words" and how
much is enough.


Chris O'Kennon
Commonwealth of Virginia Webmaster/
VIPNet Director of Portal Architecture
"When people are free to do as they please, 
they usually imitate each other."
Received on Thursday, 31 October 2002 14:52:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:32:09 UTC