- From: Devarshi Pant <devarshipant@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2011 14:38:10 -0400
- To: Userite <richard@userite.com>
- Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAJGQbjsozqhnvq9Avc32G=OanaqYW14StNrOxtCzrFAUEO=wXw@mail.gmail.com>
Richard, Your client is aware that a decorative image should have an alt attribute value of an empty string--which says something about the client. They are taking a decision based on H67, and we should respect that. I would give that largish picture an empty string, if they were my client. As someone pointed out before, if the adjoining text has information about the image, an Alt=”” should be okay. Thanks, Devarshi On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 5:14 PM, Userite <richard@userite.com> 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). > 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. > > Any thoughts ? > Richard > Richard Warren > Userite >
Received on Thursday, 3 November 2011 18:38:40 UTC