Re: img alt text, links and titles

let's put this another way.  an alternative is an alternative
representatation.  the word image does not stand for anything and you
must have written this particular speck that you point to because it
isn't anywhere else.  There are no naughty words, this is not some side
show, My personal feelings about words have nothing to do with it one
way or another and no, I am not angry.

----- Original Message -----
From: <kynn-eda@idyllmtn.com>
To: "David Poehlman" <poehlman1@home.com>
Cc: <kynn-eda@idyllmtn.com>; "Ineke van der Maat" <inekemaa@xs4all.nl>;
"Charles F. Munat" <chas@munat.com>; "Charles McCathieNevile"
<charles@w3.org>; <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 7:28 PM
Subject: Re: img alt text, links and titles


David wrote:
> you could put a note in the alt tag that there is a link that
represents
> this place on the page.  There are lots of things you can do but to
use
> image, logo and many other things such as picture... as we have
strongly
> stated before is not acceptable and will continue to lead to
confusion.
> Till the speck for the alternative is changed, please refrain from
> breaking it.

Which spec does one "break" in this way, which is the only reasonable
way of indicating that there is a longdesc for an image which is
unseen?  Is it just that the words "image" "logo" and "picture"
terrify you SO MUCH that you can't bear to think that someone would
use it in an alt text?

The example I gave is perfectly reasonable and perfectly within spec,
and I have given perfectly valid reasons for using the specific alt
text I chose to use.  As long as certain parties within the web
accessibility community continue to insist that there are "naughty
words" which should "never" be used, we will continue to have
confusion.  Accessibility is about a process and a mindset, not about
forever banishing the word "logo" from alt text.

--Kynn

Received on Wednesday, 16 January 2002 20:57:46 UTC