- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 08:54:30 -0500 (EST)
- To: "Scarlett Julian (ED)" <Julian.Scarlett@sheffield.gov.uk>
- cc: "'David Poehlman'" <poehlman1@home.com>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Hi Julian, in my humble opinion, alt="Sheffield City Council" does everything necessary. The fact that something is a link is indicated by almost every browser, since it is a basic feature of the Web. (There are a couple of development versions of obscure browsers that don't identify links, but it is genuinely difficult to find them. I know of one, among about 50 browsers, and I would be surprised if anyone else managed to come up with it). The fact that it is a logo is obvious to people who are looking at it, but it really just gives a name (way to identify a concept or object) in graphic form. In text form that is achieved by the name "Sheffield City Council". You might want to use title="Sheffield City Council Logo" - that's what this object in the page is. You might even want to describe the logo via a longdesc. Then i can use iCab to get at the description when I am using it in speech mode, and afterwards might recognise the thing that was described, when I am browsing in visual mode, or be able to describe it to someone looking in a book of council logos. Or I might not bother - it might be clear enough anyway. Cheers Chaals On Tue, 15 Jan 2002, Scarlett Julian (ED) wrote: Aaahhhh, now it's all crystal. Why does the word logo carry no meaning? Most people, sighted or not, know what a logo is. I actually thought that alt="Sheffield City Council Logo - hyperlink to Sheffield City Council home page" was good because it a) gave an indication of the purpose of the image itself and b) gave an indication of it's function as a link. Would, IYHO, alt="link to Sheffield City Council home page" be better? Julian
Received on Tuesday, 15 January 2002 08:54:33 UTC