- From: gez <gez@juicystudio.com>
- Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 02:42:55 -0000
- To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
You can say what you like in your longdesc, but leave the British out of it. They're jolly nice people, able to solve anything with a nice cuppa. _____________________________ Supplement your vitamins Web: http://www.juicystudio.com Email: gez@juicystudio.com Keeping developers informed! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Juan Ulloa" <julloa@bcc.ctc.edu> To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 5:28 PM Subject: RE: JavaScript Visual Effects > > Is it discrimination if a developer makes a website nicer to look at? If > the image is considered simple eye candy, can't the developer simple alt tag > or even an empty alt tag? > > <devils advocate with a tad bit of sarcasm> > When you view a website that has photographs using lynx or Jaws and you run > over an image that has an alt attribute that reads "photo of Jim" or "corner > graphic" Do you ponder about the way Jim looks like or how if the corner > graphic has a nice beveled curve. Or does the developer have the > responsibility to be more specific with the alt descriptions. Should the > alt attributes read: "Full body photograph of Jim: buck teeth, brown hair, > blue eyes, about 5 feet tall and dressed in denim " and "blue corner graphic > with a smooth edge connecting the left navigation color and the top > navigation bar." But maybe that's not enough, maybe I should use the > original alt attributes and apply long descriptions for each, this way I can > explain that Jim is smiling at the camera, that his denim pants have a rip > on them slightly above his left knee and that his socks don't match because > he is British. I mean, his socks don't match, AND he is British. Can I > include humor in my longdesc page, or do I have to stick to the facts? > </devils advocate with a tad bit of sarcasm> > > Juan C. Ulloa > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: William R Williams [mailto:wrwilliams@fs.fed.us] > > Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 9:03 AM > > To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > > Subject: Re: JavaScript Visual Effects > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > You've accomplished an adequate job in the alt statement of describing the > > process of presenting the 3 photographs on neaglesrock.com. Still, I have > > some difficulty anytime one indicates, as you have, that no important > > information is conveyed in the image(s). If this is the case, why is the > > photo there in the first place? > > > > In fact, doesn't it seem a discriminatory practice to have the image > > "viewable" to those who can actually see it on-screen but to indicate to > > others that no important information is presented therein? > > > > I understand that "timeliness" of information is an important > > accessibility > > concern; yet, it seems to me that a workable solution for this > > presentation > > is to simply link to a "web page" that contains the 3 separate photos and > > meaningful alts or descriptions in context. I've done exactly that for a > > similar presentation; i.e., a randam photos Javascript: > > > > http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/about/index.shtml > > http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/about/op-foos.html > > > > Bill Williams > > >
Received on Thursday, 20 November 2003 21:40:59 UTC