Re: Bobby inaccuracy?

it does not do what an alternative is supposed to do which is to convey
the same representation that the image conveys.  This point has already
been driven but I will offer a suggestion for alt text.  drop the word
logo and the word link and it should work fine.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Scarlett Julian (ED)" <Julian.Scarlett@sheffield.gov.uk>
To: "'David Poehlman'" <poehlman1@home.com>; <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 8:24 AM
Subject: RE: Bobby inaccuracy?


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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Poehlman [mailto:poehlman1@home.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 1:18 PM
> To: Scarlett Julian (ED); w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Bobby inaccuracy?
>
>
> boiling this down a bit and I did not mean to cause
> confusion.  The word
> logo conveys no meaning.  the other image I was pointing too
> was dealing
> with education which I thought to be a fair alt tag.
>
> To your question about alt="", you used it correctly.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Scarlett Julian (ED)" <Julian.Scarlett@sheffield.gov.uk>
> To: "'David Poehlman'" <poehlman1@home.com>; "Scarlett Julian (ED)"
> <Julian.Scarlett@sheffield.gov.uk>; <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 7:50 AM
> Subject: RE: Bobby inaccuracy?
>
>
> OK, confusion clear up time. The first alt text which you say is
> meaningful
> is associated with the logo
>
> <div class="imageplacer"><a href="http://www.sheffield.gov.uk/"><img
> src="img/scclogohome.gif" width="90" height="70" alt="Sheffield City
> Council
> Logo -  hyperlink to Sheffield City Council home page "
> border="0"></a>.</div>
>
> The second alt text which you say is not meaningful is associated with
> an
> image that conveys no meaning and is just designed (not by me and for
> paper
> media)to look pretty
>
> <img src="img/grad_lft.jpg" width="100%" height="5" alt="">
>
> Although I do see the humour in your suggestion, it too is not
> meaningful
> whereas my sarcastic suggestion at least is ;-)
>
> Seriously, though folks, is alt="" meaningful to those of you
> out there
> for
> whom alt text is useful or do you need something along the lines of
> alt="a
> thin horizontal image purely included on the page for visual
> effect and
> conveying no information whatsoever" ? (At least the latter would give
> room
> for those of us with inherently maverick streaks to have fun!)
>
> Julian
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Poehlman [mailto:poehlman1@home.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 12:38 PM
> > To: Scarlett Julian (ED); w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: Bobby inaccuracy?
> >
> >
> > I was thinking of the logo as the first image.  For the one
> you site,
> > how about "corporate requirement" <grin>
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Scarlett Julian (ED)" <Julian.Scarlett@sheffield.gov.uk>
> > To: "'David Poehlman'" <poehlman1@home.com>; <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 7:14 AM
> > Subject: RE: Bobby inaccuracy?
> >
> >
> > >the second alt tag is meaningful.  The first is not.
> >
> > I was under the impression that for images that convey no meaning
> > whatsoever
> > it was best to include an empty alt text thus alt=""
> >
> > The image in question is a horizontal line in Corporate
> > colours required
> > by
> > our Council design guidelines (believe me, if I had my way
> > it'd just be
> > a
> > <hr>)and as such conveys nothing useful to a user (sighted or
> > otherwise).
> >
> > What would you suggest as a suitable piece of text? maybe
> > alt="meaningless
> > image, please ignore"?
> >
> > thanks
> > Julian
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: David Poehlman [mailto:poehlman1@home.com]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 12:04 PM
> > > To: Scarlett Julian (ED); w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> > > Subject: Re: Bobby inaccuracy?
> > >
> > >
> > > This formulation is often used to mark up different types of
> > > items such
> > > as new or discontinued and often, the images are
> differently colored
> > > swatches, circles, butterflies whatever and the attention
> > drawer is to
> > > insure that if this is indeed the case, the image should not
> > > be the only
> > > way in the link that the information about the property of
> > the item is
> > > conveyed that is conveyed by it.
> > >
> > > I'd like to make a further comment on the code sample though.  the
> > > second alt tag is meaningful.  The first is not.   I have not
> > > looked at
> > > the others.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Scarlett Julian (ED)" <Julian.Scarlett@sheffield.gov.uk>
> > > To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 5:08 AM
> > > Subject: Bobby inaccuracy?
> > >
> > >
> > > I've just run a AAA Bobby test on a page and although it passed it
> > > included
> > > the usual user checks on colour and images conveying information.
> > > However it
> > > flagged all lines with <img> in the section about using
> > > colour to convey
> > > information as well as that about using images.
> > >
> > > If you use color to convey information, make sure the
> information is
> > > also
> > > represented another way.
> > > <http://bobby.cast.org:80/bobby/html/en/gls/g245.html> (5
> instances)
> > > Line 26: <div class="imageplacer"><a
> > > href="http://www.sheffield.gov.uk/"><img src="img/scclogohome.gif"
> > > width="90" height="70" alt="Sheffield City Council Logo -
> > hyperlink to
> > > Sheffield City Council home page " border="0"></a>.</div>
> > > Line 38: <img src="img/grad_lft.jpg" width="100%"
> height="5" alt="">
> > > <br>
> > > Line 39: <div style="height: 280; width: 400; border: none; float:
> > > right"><img src="img/education.jpg" width="300" height="211"
> > > alt="Primary
> > > school children using modelling clay in a classroom">
> > > Line 78: <div style="height: 280; width: 400; border: none; float:
> > > right;
> > > margin-right: 5%"><img src="img/education2.jpg" width="350"
> > > height="238"
> > > alt="Primary school children playing basketball."></div>
> > > Line 121: <div align="right"><img src="img/grad_rht.jpg"
> > width="100%"
> > > height="5" alt=""><a name="4"></a>.
> > > If an image conveys important information beyond what is in its
> > > alternative
> > > text, provide an extended description.
> > > <http://bobby.cast.org:80/bobby/html/en/gls/g12.html> (5
> instances)
> > > Line 26: <div class="imageplacer"><a
> > > href="http://www.sheffield.gov.uk/"><img src="img/scclogohome.gif"
> > > width="90" height="70" alt="Sheffield City Council Logo -
> > hyperlink to
> > > Sheffield City Council home page " border="0"></a>.</div>
> > > Line 38: <img src="img/grad_lft.jpg" width="100%"
> height="5" alt="">
> > > <br>
> > > Line 39: <div style="height: 280; width: 400; border: none; float:
> > > right"><img src="img/education.jpg" width="300" height="211"
> > > alt="Primary
> > > school children using modelling clay in a classroom">
> > > Line 78: <div style="height: 280; width: 400; border: none; float:
> > > right;
> > > margin-right: 5%"><img src="img/education2.jpg" width="350"
> > > height="238"
> > > alt="Primary school children playing basketball."></div>
> > > Line 121: <div align="right"><img src="img/grad_rht.jpg"
> > width="100%"
> > > height="5" alt=""><a name="4"></a>.
> > >
> > > I've looked at the relevant guidelines (WAI checkpint 2.1)
> > and can see
> > > no
> > > reason for this.
> > >
> > > Can anyone enlighten me?
> > >
> > > tia
> > > Julian
> > >
> > >
> > > Julian Scarlett
> > > Web Design & Document Management System Officer
> > > PPU
> > > Education Directorate
> > > Sheffield City Council
> > > 0114 2735721
> > > mob 07904914976
> > > julian.scarlett@sheffield.gov.uk
> > >
> > > The information in this email is confidential. The contents
> > may not be
> > > disclosed or used by anyone other than the addressee.  If
> > you are not
> > > the addressee, please tell us by using the reply facility in
> > > your email
> > > software as soon as possible. Sheffield City Council cannot
> > accept any
> > > responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of this
> > message as it
> > > has been transmitted over a public network.  If you
> suspect that the
> > > message may have been intercepted or amended please tell us
> > as soon as
> > > possible.
> > >
> > >
> > The information in this email is confidential. The contents
> may not be
> > disclosed or used by anyone other than the addressee.  If
> you are not
> > the addressee, please tell us by using the reply facility in
> > your email
> > software as soon as possible. Sheffield City Council cannot
> accept any
> > responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of this
> message as it
> > has been transmitted over a public network.  If you suspect that the
> > message may have been intercepted or amended please tell us
> as soon as
> > possible.
> >
> >
> The information in this email is confidential. The contents may not be
> disclosed or used by anyone other than the addressee.  If you are not
> the addressee, please tell us by using the reply facility in
> your email
> software as soon as possible. Sheffield City Council cannot accept any
> responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of this message as it
> has been transmitted over a public network.  If you suspect that the
> message may have been intercepted or amended please tell us as soon as
> possible.
>
>
>
The information in this email is confidential. The contents may not be
disclosed or used by anyone other than the addressee.  If you are not
the addressee, please tell us by using the reply facility in your email
software as soon as possible. Sheffield City Council cannot accept any
responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of this message as it
has been transmitted over a public network.  If you suspect that the
message may have been intercepted or amended please tell us as soon as
possible.

Received on Tuesday, 15 January 2002 10:20:20 UTC