W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2003

no alt 'tag' discussion pls (was: Re: screen readers ... bobby question)

From: iris <iristopa@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 06:17:14 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <20030308141714.16520.qmail@web13202.mail.yahoo.com>
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org

no, please, let's not have another discussion about
the alt 'tag'.  we've done that on this very list a
hundred and one times. the question was about bobby
not about alt tags.  i was only giving some examples
of where either the guidelines are ambigious, user
agent implementation poor or web designer discretion


--- Access Systems <accessys@smart.net> wrote:
> 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

omnia mea mecum porto


Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
Received on Saturday, 8 March 2003 09:17:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:36:14 UTC