- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2011 21:57:05 +0000
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
On 02/11/2011 21:14, Userite wrote: > I am having real problems with a client who insist that certain images > are decorative and can therefore be given a null alt tag as per H67. I > can accept that a squiggly line or fancy text box border is decorative, > but not a largish picture of a building (no particular building, just a > museum type facade). So what's the purpose of the image? To just look pretty and add some visual interest? In that case, I'd say an empty alt *attribute* is fair enough (others will argue against it, but that's what you get) as long as the text also reflects the same "tone" that the image is trying to convey. > I really think that it is time to remove H67 as a technique, either a > non-text item such as an image should have a text equivalent, or it > should not be imported by HTML but be treated as styling and imported > via CSS so that it is totally ignored by screen readers etc. This way > there is no need for subjective discussions. All you'd get then is designers and developers avoiding any and all accessibility discussion by simply making ALL their images CSS-based and only having lots of empty divs and spans in their page where they then insert images via stylesheet... 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 | http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ ______________________________________________________________ twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke ______________________________________________________________
Received on Wednesday, 2 November 2011 21:57:51 UTC