- From: Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG) <rscano@iwa-italy.org>
- Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 19:40:36 +0100
- To: <michele@diodati.org>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
We are creating big noise for nothing.
Alt text = alternative text = text with the same scope of the image
Title= use for <a> element to specify destination/action
So, for eg:
A) image with text, where text is important (eg. A button,a logo, etc)
B) image with text not importa for the scope of the image (eg, text in background, like "matrix" movie...)
C) a picture, like gioconda. In this case, alt shuld be "Gioconda Picture" and eventually a longdesc that describe it
D) a graph with bar and number (text). Alt text should be "graphic: graphic title" with longdesc that should contain a graph desc plus a data table with graph values.
Morale: alt attribute hasn't common rules, but only a common rule: must be alternative to the image, not descriptive.
----- Messaggio originale -----
>Da: "Michele Diodati"<michele.diodati@gmail.com>
>Inviato: 07/01/05 19.11.02
>A: "w3c-wai-gl@w3.org"<w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
>Oggetto: Re: ALT and TITLE Clarification
>
>Chris Ridpath <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca> wrote:
>
>> > Think to a menubar: alt text for every image is
>> > an alternative text for it, not a description.
>
>> This is the way things are done now. I'm proposing that we change a bit.
>>
>> If the menu button was a picture of scissors the alt text should be
>> "scissors". The title would be "cut". User agents could tell the user "cut"
>> and "picture of scissors".
>
>It seems to me your proposal adds an unnecessary cognitive burdening.
>Accessibility for non visual users has to aim at keeping as low as
>possibile noise in the content. For example, a sighted chess player
>may find pretty and funny a web page containing a graphical
>sophisticated chessboard, as long as he can easily distinguish the
>pawns from the bishops or the rooks from the queens, and play with
>ease his game. But the same chessboard and the same chess set can
>become very problematic, if you presume to describe with alt texts
>every single snip in the graphic environment of the page. A blind
>chess player wants simply know that the queen pawn moved to D4! All
>the rest is noise.
>
>So I think alt texts, if they have to be valid substitutes for images
>(as requested in [1]), should contain the smallest piece of
>information meaningful enough to allow non-visual users to understand
>the content and use it to the best advantage. To this end, in some
>cases we may need to put in alt texts a description of the image
>content, in some cases we rather may need to put in them a description
>of the image function. In any case a description of the image is not
>necessary in order to make understandable and correctly usable the
>content, why not use longdesc to provide non-visual users with a full
>description of the graphic content?
>
>Regards,
>Michele Diodati
>--
>http://www.diodati.org
>
>[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/struct/objects.html#adef-alt
>
>
> >
[Messaggio troncato. Toccare Modifica->Segna per il download per recuperare la restante parte.]
Received on Friday, 7 January 2005 18:40:42 UTC