W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 2000

Clarifying malicious

From: Savin, Jill <jsavin@mentortech.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 17:27:29 -0400
Message-ID: <87E28E4E9BF3D311834B009027B0A5259E4FC6@annwestex.corp.mentortech.com>
Cc: "'WAI'" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>

>A while back I made a joke, when discussing the "bobby" graphic, like:
>"What, do they think people are maliciously leaving out alt tags or
>And then of course along came the IBM Olympic website, where they
>did just that.  I must apologize for my earlier naiveté' in this area!  The
>others were right!

Hold on, a sec, I don't think the Olympic site was being _malicious_.
Let's not attribute to malice what is clearly ignorance or


**Guess I should clarify, before I get sued by IBM, I was NOT calling IBM
malicious - I was referring to my own statement made earlier, when I 'joked'
about people "maliciously leaving out alt text tags", because I never
thought that any big corporation would do a website these days without alt
text for their graphic images, but then came the IBM Sydney 2000 website,
and the remark that it would take 12 months and 2 millions dollars to add
alt tags to the site.  When I said "they did just that", I meant they left
the alt text out of their image tags, not that they were malicious.  I can
see how my poor wording might convey the wrong image.  Lawyers please take
note..  (Obviously I should go work for IBM too, cause I am apparently being
way underpaid at current jobs when I put alt text in image tags..)
Received on Tuesday, 26 September 2000 17:27:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:35:57 UTC