- From: Matthew J. Giustino <mjg@giustiweb.com>
- Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 07:33:09 -0500
- To: david@dorward.me.uk, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Received on Tuesday, 21 December 2004 12:33:43 UTC
I disagree, "alt" is in fact a description. Maybe this page will clarify the "alt" attribute for this discussion. Reference for "alt" : http://www.w3.org/WAI/wcag-curric/sam2-0.htm Matthew J. Giustino mjg@giustiweb.com David Dorward wrote: >On Tue, Dec 21, 2004 at 07:01:35AM -0500, Matthew J. Giustino wrote: > > >> I would also like to add that you also have the "alt" attribute (alt; >> Defines a short description of the image)\001 available to you. >> >> > >No, alt provides a replacement for the image, not a description. Using >a description leads to delightful webpages like >http://www.btplc.com/age_disability/ (picked on becuase it was the >first bad example I could find) which has: > > BT Logo - link to bt.com > >* Does it really matter that its a logo? > >* It has an <a> around it, the browser knows its a link and can tell >the user. > >* Where else is something labeled "BT" likely to link? And if there is >somewhere, then why not include that information for people who can >see the image? > > >
Received on Tuesday, 21 December 2004 12:33:43 UTC