- From: Kerstin Goldsmith <kerstin.goldsmith@oracle.com>
- Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 12:34:48 -0700
- To: Jesper Tverskov <jesper.tverskov@mail.tele.dk>
- CC: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org, "'Michael Cooper'" <michaelc@watchfire.com>, "'Wendy Chisholm'" <wendy@w3.org>
what about something like SUMMARY="layout" and ALT="decor"? that shows intention ..... Jesper Tverskov wrote: >I know very well that using alt="" in images, meaning "decoration", >etc., is a long standing convention. I am using it myself and I >recommend others to use it, but I consider it a bad convention, a >disservice to accessibility. > >Now we are also going to get summary="", title="", accesskey="", you >name it. It is bad for many reasons. Many tools for making web pages put >in all sorts of attributes="" by default so web page authors can fill >them in. > >Many web page authors when putting in attributes "by hand", often start >with title="", summary="", alt="", etc. especially when they are in >doubt of what value to use right a way, they prefer to put in the >attribute first and to add the right value later. > > >That is the main reason why putting special meaning to attribute="", >meaning null, is the worst of all choices we could have made. It is the >worst choice possible if we want to use the attribute for testing. Most >often the meaning of attribute="" is not null but that the author has >forgotten to finish the attribute, the right value is not yet in place. > >I am just suggesting putting an end to the above "madness" of thinking >that attribute="" is great. It is not. We should come up with something >better, and we should not expect for other specs to accept so bad >solutions in the long run. They give accessibility a bad name. > >Best regards, > >Jesper Tverskov >www.smackthemouse.com > > > >
Received on Friday, 27 August 2004 19:36:23 UTC