W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2011

Re: Null alt tags for decorative images - Technique H67

From: Ramón Corominas <listas@ramoncorominas.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 11:53:41 +0100
Message-Id: <BB304127-FA14-4E48-9E19-AF79C2697B5A@ramoncorominas.com>
Cc: "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
To: David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>
The whole graphic design conveys many "intentional" informatiin. Colour and typography can be used to convey modern/classic identity; visual spaces and disposition can convey relaxing, agressive or stressing moods; circles and squares convey different meanings; and of course most logos are designed to convey subbtle (or evident) information about the company and its purpose.

So... Should we put all those "intentional clues" in plain text?

For me, "decorative" means "all that stuff that can be completely ignored without losing any relevant information AND, if left, will be more annoying and disturbing than useful to the screen reader user".


David wrote:

> Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
>>> Often these are a very important part for the designer because they can
>>> link the product with concepts in a way that would be considered
>>> unethical in actual text or alt text.
>> We may be straying now from the topic of accessibility to that of advertising standards...
> I don't think that you can ignore that.  Images and styling allow messages to be put across that cannot honestly be put across in plain text, which means that the alt attribute for an image will often convey nothing like the real intent of the image.
> The images are often stock images and the represent the image that the company would like to put across and may bear no relation to the reality.  Most modern PR material is about feeding back to the audience what they want to see, and images allow one to do that in a way that can be more economical with the truth than plain text, and that is why the examples of alt text end up being boring descriptions of the contents of the image, rather than the true message of the image.
> -- 
> David Woolley
> Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
> RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
> that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.
Received on Friday, 4 November 2011 10:56:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:36:38 UTC