RE: talking about text alternatives Re: ALT as required attribute

• From: Jon Hanna <jon@spin.ie>
• Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 15:14:07 -0000
• To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
• Message-ID: <NDBBLCBLIMDOPKMOPHLHIEJLENAA.jon@spin.ie>

> I certainly think that talking about "the alt attribute" instead of 
> talking about text alternatives in case the imagery isn't clear has 
> been a mistake. Not least because the alt attribute is limited to the 
> img element, and isn't what is generally considered the best way to 
> provide for alternative text - SVG uses child elements instead which 
> can bring a few advantages and is more like what the XML accessibility 
> guidelines suggest.

As does HTMLs <object>:

<object data="movieURI" type="movie/avi">
	<object data="imageURI" type="image/png">
		<em>rich</em> alternative content
	</object>
</object>

It lacks longdesc though.

Received on Wednesday, 5 February 2003 10:13:39 UTC