W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2002

Re: img alt text, links and titles

From: Patrick Burke <burke@ucla.edu>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 12:05:14 -0800
Message-Id: <>
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,


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..
>  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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:36:07 UTC