- From: Melinda Morris-Black <melinda@ink.org>
- Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2000 16:26:18 -0500
- To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- CC: "WAI Interest Group (E-mail)" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Actually, what I should have typed was how does Bobby or any of the verification applications handle the empty quotes? Does it validate as compliant? Thanks to all that have responded. I can always count on quick responses from this group. The page Carl sent is particularly wonderful-- http://ppewww.ph.gla.ac.uk/%7Eflavell/alt/alt-text.html -- Regards, MELINDA MORRIS-BLACK Information Architect Information Networks of Kansas FON: (785) 296-5143 PCS: (785) 550-7345 FAX: (785) 296-5563 melinda@ink.org Charles McCathieNevile wrote: > If you don't provide some knd of alt (text, or empty quotes) then you cannot > create valid HTML for any version since 3.2 > > My preference is for empty quotes when there is nothing useful to say about > the image (in terms of its function - if you want to add a title or longdesc, > then feel free). > > Charles McCN > > On Mon, 5 Jun 2000, Melinda Morris-Black wrote: > > I've heard two schools of thought on alt tagging images. I'd appreciate a > definitive answer, if one exists on this issue. > > 1st school: Alt tag every image, no matter how insignificant. > 2nd school: If the image is a spacer gif or decorate bullet-type element, use "" > (empty quotes). > > I was told by a user of screen readers that hearing the description of redundant > elements was annoying, so I'm seeking clarification. Additionally, how does > Bobby or any of the verification applications handle the empty tags? > > Thanks to the list for answering these very basic questions. > > -- > Regards, > > MELINDA MORRIS-BLACK > Information Architect
Received on Monday, 5 June 2000 17:18:15 UTC