- From: Yvette P. Hoitink <y.p.hoitink@heritas.nl>
- Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 16:58:50 +0100
- To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
In the HTML techniques document, there is a technique called "Short text equivalents for img elements ("alt-text")": <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-HTML-TECHS-20031020.html#img-alt> What seems to be missing here, is the explanation of when to use null alt-text. I remember visiting a website, built by a company who just got interested in accessibility. They used a lot of spacer images to enforce layout, each of which had an alt-text saying "Image used for presentational purposes only". Can you imagine how crazy that drove their blind visitors? This is a textbook case of when to use null alt-text. Another example of when to use null alt-text is when the alternative text is already present in the page, for example if have a gallery of pictures where the title of the image is printed below it. Another example is the combined use of an icon and text as a link, which is discussed elsewhere on the page: <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-HTML-TECHS-20031020.html#imagetex tlinks>. Besides the lack of explanation about when to use null alt-text, I think we need some more techniques for providing text equivalents. The WCAG guidelines version 2 are worded such, that these last two examples I gave count as providing a text equivalent for non-text content that can be expressed into words. However, in the techniques document, the ALT-attribute is the only technique that is presented to provide a text equivalent for an image. Reading the techniques document, I would think that I still had to provide an alt-text for an image, even if (the same) text was already used as a 'caption' for the image on the page. I think this is unfortunate and narrows the intentions of the WCAG 2 document. Yvette Hoitink CEO Heritas, Enschede, The Netherlands
Received on Friday, 31 October 2003 10:58:53 UTC