- From: Liam Quinn <liam@htmlhelp.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 20:00:29 -0500
- To: Samsara Vagabond <vagabond@slumbering.lungfish.com>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
At 12:24 PM 17/02/98 -0800, Samsara Vagabond wrote: >While I agree that it's better to replicate the >function of an image when the image has an external >function, I'm skeptical of the use of null or >blank alternative text. > >Succinctly put, can it be considered "accessible" to withhold either >information that could be used to decide whether or not to view an >image, or the existence of the image entirely? Should the ALT attribute take on this role, in addition to its other role of replicating the function of the image? Is there a reason why we have to attach everything to do with the image to the ALT attribute? >Certainly it makes reading more comfortable for people who >have decided not to interact with images in any way, but >at the expense, I would think, of people who may >want to interact with SOME images, in SOME manner. The TITLE attribute fits perfectly for this function. ALT gives pure, context-sensitive, media-independent content, and TITLE gives a context-free description of a media-dependent element. >Now, HTML 4.0 could change this, using the title >attribute. So is it acceptable to assume that >everyone reading your page has a user agent that >is title-attribute-aware? No, but it's acceptable to assume that everyone reading my page won't mind that they can get all the content at the expense of missing descriptions of eye candy. If I force descriptions of eye candy into ALT text, I'm taking away from the content of the page. I don't think it's worth it. >The method I'm considering for my own pages is this: > >1) Replace stylized text graphics with the equivalent text. > >2) Replace images with an external function (link, >warning, etc.) with a word or phrase that replicates the >function. If this is unfeasible, replace it with a word or >phrase that describes the function. > >3) Replace images with no external function (i.e., images >that are there just to be images) with a brief description of >the image. > >I can provide examples if anybody wants them... I like #1 and #2, but #3 is inconsistent. If I were listening to a Web page, occurrences of #3 would be distracting and/or confusing. An example incorporating all three would be nice... -- Liam Quinn Web Design Group Enhanced Designs, Web Site Development http://www.htmlhelp.com/ http://enhanced-designs.com/
Received on Tuesday, 17 February 1998 19:59:15 UTC