- From: Wayne Dick <wed@csulb.edu>
- Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 13:56:52 -0700
- To: Harry Loots <harry.loots@ieee.org>
- Cc: W3C WAI ig <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Dear Harry,
If you already got this please ignore all but the first paragraph.
Adding a text alternative to non-material is a serious issue. That is
why there are six cases of sufficient techniques to describe text
alternatives. To see this worked out completely look at:
http://www.tomjewett.com/accessibility/alt-text.html
You certainly can use title and alt for different purposes. Title
text has a role in web programming. Unlike alt, the title attribute
does not serve accessibility alone. It is the content author's title
of the element. It is public information, unlike say, an event
handler attribute. It has an intended use in HTML. One application
of this purpose is to trigger tool tips which indicate the title of
the referenced element.
The example where the text for title and alt are equal, is an example
where you should not remove accessibility for one group to support
another. The problem is with the assistive technology, not the coding.
A page with alt text equal to title is accessible if it meets the
other accessibility criteria. A page without title text will
definitely be inaccessible to many readers with low vision.
Consider a link with an icon image and no text. Alt-text will do the
job for someone with a screen reader. The tool tip, triggered by title
text, will explain the icon to the user with low vision. Both title
text and alt text are needed. There many features of browsers that
support enlargement and other needs of low vision, but icons are
impervious to these features. The tool tip enables the user with low
vision to know what the link means by using hover.
Accessibility does not include the misuse of elements or attributes.
Cheers,
Wayne
Received on Tuesday, 17 August 2010 20:57:26 UTC