Re: Two new sites

>At 10:31 PM 24/10/98 -0500, Charles F. Munat wrote:
>>The first site is artistically more interesting (well, I like it better),
>>but uses tables for formatting and a few invisible spacer images. Just
>>wouldn't work without them, and my client is still using Netscape 2!
Still,
>>it sounds okay to me. You can find it at Vallarta Unveiled:
>>http://vallartabooks.com.
>
>Is there any point in the non-visual user hearing "Image: Spacer" and
>"Image: Vertical rule"?  I would think that using ALT="" would be much less
>distracting.
>
>Along the same line, what is the point of telling the user that his or her
>browser does not support JavaScript?
>
>--
>Liam Quinn
>

Thanks for the response.

On the first point (using alt = Image: Spacer vs. alt = ""), I am open to
other suggestions. My original intent was to reassure the non-visual user
that the image in question was of no significance. What is the point of
Alt=""? Why bother with the alt tag at all? Except, of course, that the
Bobby Validator will kick the site out as not approved. This is a good
question. If an image IS used as a spacer, rule, etc., how should that be
handled on the alt tags.

The reason I put Image: in front of the description was that on Lynx, only
the alt text appears. Without the Image: prefix, some of the alt text seemed
pretty weird (taken out of context). That was more obvious on the Tropicasa
site. Remember, these sites were not built for companies who cater to people
with disabilities (or who even cared for that matter). Much of what I've
done in the code is a compromise between trying to make things interested to
visual users while maintaining accessibility to non-visual users.

On the second point, Bobby won't approve unless there's a noscript tag.
Since the scripts on my site are all for dynamic HTML purposes (except some
form validation that's duplicated on the server), what was I to put in the
noscript tag? And remember, Netscape 2 is going to show everyone the content
of those tags anyway, but without the "unsupported script" next to it. So I
had to try to compromise again. My intent was to reassure those with
non-visual access that they weren't missing anything of importance in the
scripts. Again, I am open to other suggestions and would like to hear what
others think as well.

Charles Munat
Code Red Internet Solutions
Puerto Vallarta.

Received on Sunday, 25 October 1998 00:08:04 UTC