- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 14:06:36 +0000
- To: Matt Lee <matt.lee@nhs.net>
- Cc: WAI Interest Group <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Quoting Matt Lee <matt.lee@nhs.net>: > Is there any information that is not set in stone regarding alternative > text for images, (ie. alt attributes)? > > Currently, there seem to be a few different schools of thought on the > subject:- I think you've answered your own question to a certain extent: because there ISN'T anything set in stone (and there couldn't be), there are different schools of thought. Even asking different screen reader / text browser / etc users will usually get you different answers, more akin to personal preference. Personally, I tend to fall into the second camp: if it's something like a photo of a member of staff on a profile page, I'd treat it as visual fluff and put a null alt on it. Of course, it's a judgement call that needs to be carefully made...when is an image fluff and when does it start to become meaningful content? P -- Patrick H. Lauke __________________________________________________________ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __________________________________________________________ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __________________________________________________________
Received on Friday, 10 November 2006 22:03:33 UTC