Re: WCAG 1.0 or 2.0?

On 10/19/06, John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu> wrote on the subject of
images with minimally-descriptive alt attributes:

> It
> *could* also be defended under Section 508, which simply states; "A text
> equivalent for every non-text element shall be provided" - there is no
> mention of appropriateness or even usefulness.


For real-world example, consider a dynamically-loaded image whose subject
isn't necessarily known ahead of time. For example, my personal site has a
"photo badge" from Flickr with six images that all have the same alt
attribute: "A photo on Flickr." I would argue that such an attribute is
perfectly reasonable, since I have no way of knowing whether a given
randomly selected photo will be of my dog, of me on vacation, or of anything
else.

Of course, I (or Flickr) could feed the photos from a database pre-matched
with appropriate alt texts...

On further thought, certainly the question of whether the image conveys
additional meaning that isn't conveyed in the surounding text is an
important one. An image of a planned escape route out of a building in case
of a fire that has an alt attribute of "a picture" would surely be bordering
on negligent if not criminally irresponsible.

Chris