- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 00:51:46 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Bruce Bailey <bbailey@clark.net>
- cc: Marjolein Katsma <access@javawoman.com>, Web Accessibility Initiative <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
I disagree - it is an attempt to use each attribute for their intended function. The alt attribute specifies a replacement text, and the title attribute specifies, in humna readable form, the role of the element in the document. Charles McCN On Thu, 20 Apr 2000, Bruce Bailey wrote: 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. -- Charles McCathieNevile mailto:charles@w3.org phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136 W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053 Postal: GPO Box 2476V, Melbourne 3001, Australia
Received on Friday, 21 April 2000 00:52:03 UTC