- From: Andrew Kirkpatrick <andrew_kirkpatrick@wgbh.org>
- Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 16:10:51 -0500
- To: "Bailey, Bruce" <Bruce.Bailey@ed.gov>
- Cc: WAI WCAG List <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
>> The HTML 4.01 recommendation includes: >>> you need to provide a description with ALT > > Do we not concur that the word "description" is very misleading if not > out-and-out wrong? > How about getting this fixed? > Is this corrected with XHTML1? Chris's proposal would make the word "description" here more accurate. I'm not sure that description is the right word for what alt should contain. >>>> decorative (e.g. http://www.btyahoo.com/internet has the building >>>> blocks image). > > The image (in this example) contains graphical text, but said text is > almost verbatim in the body. I agree that CSS would be the any > excellent solution, perhaps the best. I agree that, in this specific > case, that alt="" would be better than repeating the graphical text. > However, the image is quite prominent, and if a sighted person someone > were on the phone with me (and we are discussing the site), they might > well say something like, "you know, the page with the building blocks > on it". The screen reader user is potentially disadvantaged is such > an obvious visual feature is deliberately obscured from them. I would > make the case for compromise alt content like "building blocks". And I wouldn't disagree with the argument you just made or quibble about "building blocks". Seeing null alt or "building blocks" wouldn't raise to the threshold of being worth making a fuss over. Repeating all of the text in the image is another thing altogether. AWK -- Andrew Kirkpatrick WGBH National Center for Accessible Media 125 Western Ave. Boston, MA 02134 E-mail: andrew_kirkpatrick@wgbh.org 617.300.4420
Received on Friday, 7 January 2005 21:11:29 UTC