- From: Bruce Bailey <bbailey@clark.net>
- Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 10:22:18 -0500
- To: WAI Interest Group <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
I recently came across this gem from Alan Flavell. I don't think it is that new, but it was last updated 25 October 1999. "Use of ALT texts in IMGs" at URL: http://ppewww.ph.gla.ac.uk/~flavell/alt/alt-text.html In particular, he says I am wrong when I use code like: ALT="Photo of building" and ALT="DORS logo". His closest counter example is <Q>ALT="Picture of Hotel"</Q> which he suggests should be replaced with something like <Q>ALT="The Pines Hotel, a fine old stone building in extensive grounds"</Q>. I don't think there is a need for me to be more descriptive. Alan might say this is because I have not given enough thought as to why the picture is there. Do I want, for example, people to appreciate that the building looks new and modern and inviting? Um, I just have pictures (where I can get them) for visual interest. I have taken care to make sure they are small (< 20K), so this "eye candy" should not be too much of a hardship. I guess I figure people might recognize the building the building if they happen to drive by. Alan seems to argue that, since (as the author) I feel the pictures are primarily decorational, I should use ALT="". Is he right? On a similar vein, I try never to use the words "picture" or "image" in my alt text, since the term is ambiguous. I prefer "photo" or "drawing" or "logo". Alan argues that this is wrong and that, for example. <Q>alt="ACME Corp logo"</Q> should be replaced by either <Q>alt="ACME"</Q> or <Q>alt=""</Q> depending on circumstances. I disagree with this, since the addition of one or two more (short) words gives additional information to the text-only browser. Am I misusing ALT? FYI, the feature articles at the Web Design Group site are all good reading: http://www.htmlhelp.org/feature/ Bruce Bailey
Received on Saturday, 20 November 1999 10:22:45 UTC