- From: Access Systems <accessys@smart.net>
- Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 08:51:37 -0500 (EST)
- To: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
- cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
On Sat, 8 Mar 2003, David Woolley wrote:
> > example 2: for purely decorative images it has become
> > general practise to use empty alt attributes. that is
> > just to satisfy bobby and wai. how is that more
> > accessible than a missing alt attribute?
>
> A missing alt makes the HTML invalid. I think the idea was that requiring
> the attribute would make people think about it, but, of course, people just
and if you are using text, you never know wheather it is "just for
pretty" or critical information...I think EVERY piece of graphic no matter
how unimportant the writer thinks it is (well it must be important he
coded it) it should be left to the reader to decide if it is
valuable. even if the alt tag is "pretty curlicues" it should be there. I
don't think any alt should ever be empty for any reason if it displays for
any user the information should be there for every user.
Bob
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve Neither liberty nor safety", Benjamin Franklin
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ASCII Ribbon Campaign accessBob
NO HTML/PDF/RTF in e-mail accessys@smartnospam.net
NO MSWord docs in e-mail Access Systems, engineers
NO attachments in e-mail, *LINUX powered* access is a civil right
*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#
THIS message and any attachments are CONFIDENTIAL and may be
privileged. They are intended ONLY for the individual or entity named
Received on Saturday, 8 March 2003 08:51:42 UTC