Re: WCAG 1.0 or 2.0?

> 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

I don't know what Flickr is, so I would say that this fails both by 
using jargon and because it would only appropriate in an article 
promoting, crticising, or providing a discussion about Flickr.

What you should have depends on the purpose of the image.  It's possible
that "I know how to make my web pages display different pictures every
time" might be reasonable in some contexts.  In another context, it
might be "I have a dog, go on tropical sand and surf holidays,.....".
However, for the second interpretation, the visual version would fail for
cognitive disabilities because the viewer may not be able to integrate
the various images to create this full picture.  It might also be a
completely gratuitous image, in which case I'd vote for alt="", or maybe
for custom text for each image.

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

Yes.  It did occur to me that you are trying to work around tools which
were designed without any consideration of accessibility.  In a world
where most software tools are not designed to promote accessibility,
you may have to reject some tools (typically tools are sold on the basis
that it is not the tool that causes inaccessibility but the user of the
tool, thus relieving the tool developer of the moral responsibility).

Received on Thursday, 19 October 2006 21:31:18 UTC