- From: Bruce Bailey <bbailey@clark.net>
- Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 12:23:28 -0400
- To: "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@w3.org>, "Marjolein Katsma" <access@javawoman.com>
- Cc: "Web Accessibility Initiative" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Marjolein commented: >> I just don't see a better alternative to the W3C logo than "W3C logo". >> Can you make up a better ALT attribute that still conveys the fact that >> it *is* a logo, and not "text to be read"? To which Charles replied: > What I do... > In text, as an alt, I use the name of the thing being identified - for > example W3C. In the title of the image I explain that it is a logo (human > redable text about the role of the image in the page) > For example: > <img src="w3c_home" alt="World Wide Web Consortium" title="W3C Logo" /> That is a clever attempt to opt out of the debate over which is better. If you can't decide, why not do both? Sorry, I am not buying it. For my part, I am loath to use TITLE on IMGs that are NOT links. And for IMGs that actually ARE links, I use the TITLE that is specified in the HEAD by the referenced HREF'ed document. This is usually something similar for what you propose for ALT content. I agree with Marjolein on this one.
Received on Thursday, 20 April 2000 12:27:01 UTC