- From: Chris O'Kennon <chris@vipnet.org>
- Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 14:53:53 -0500
- 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. [1] http://lvaimage.lib.va.us/cgi-bin/photo.cgi/VDLP/EasternShore/images/027 Chris O'Kennon Commonwealth of Virginia Webmaster/ VIPNet Director of Portal Architecture www.myvirginia.org ______________________________________ "When people are free to do as they please, they usually imitate each other."
Received on Thursday, 31 October 2002 14:52:39 UTC