- 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