- From: Colin F Reynolds <colin@bespin.demon.co.uk>
- Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 01:01:06 +0000
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
In article <Pine.OSF.3.96.980210225622.3087A-100000@a5.ph.gla.ac.uk>, "Alan J. Flavell" <flavell@a5.ph.gla.ac.uk> writes [An excellent summary of the purpose of ALT snipped for brevity] >It would be a complete mistake to let our choice be dominated by what one >or other browser happens to be doing today. Let's concentrate on the >functional requirement, in terms of user needs, and then we can evaluate >how well the browsers are fulfilling that requirement. Not vice versa. Absolutely. Particularly as there is so much variety, and so little agreement, amongst the browser developers (as well as between versions of the same browser). We seem to be chasing ourselves around in never-ending circles. The browser developers have a view on what ALT is, or means to them, and produce a browser which renders it in a certain way. Web authors see the effects, write code accordingly, and modify their behaviour in an ever- more futile attempt to cater for the changing browser behaviour. As far as I can see this has arisen because of ambiguity in the original specification - but this ambiguity still remains unresolved. Why is it so difficult to reach a concensus on such a basic concept as ALTernative text for images? -- Colin Reynolds "I know you believe you understand what you thought I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard was not what I meant!"
Received on Tuesday, 10 February 1998 21:16:04 UTC