- From: Patrick Burke <burke@ucla.edu>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 12:05:14 -0800
- To: Ineke van der Maat <inekemaa@xs4all.nl>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
There's nothing wrong (is there?) with having a different ALT for the same image if its context & function have changed. In the copyright statement, the function is changed by the explicit reference to the image. So you might even use ALT="filename.jpg", although you might be including the filenames in the copyright statement already. So the statement might read: "Decorative images File1, File2, ... are copyright 1987 by Foo, Inc." On the other hand, if the images are that important, perhaps they deserve a couple words of ALT text in the main document. (As ever it's hard to say exactly what to do for ALT content without a concrete example.) Just some more €.03, Patrick At 08:36 PM 1/17/2002, Ineke van der Maat wrote: >Hi Steve, > >Thanks for your answer, but a sighted visitor can see that image. So I >have to mention the copyright anywhere in the site. >It is especially important for a political site I maintain.. > >Cheers > Ineke > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Steve Brumbaugh" <sbrumb@fas.harvard.edu> >To: "Ineke van der Maat" <inekemaa@xs4all.nl> >Cc: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org> >Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 9:50 AM >Subject: Re: img alt text, links and titles > > > > On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, Ineke van der Maat wrote: > > > > > When I use alt="" because it is a meaningless picture, the blind user > > > has no idea there is a image in the page. But what to do when I have > > > to mention who has the copyrights of that meaningless image?
Received on Thursday, 17 January 2002 15:05:33 UTC