- From: David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>
- Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 08:41:54 +0100
- To: Glen Wallis <glen.wallis@gmail.com>
- CC: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Glen Wallis wrote: > I recently tested a site that includes images with title attributes but > no alt attributes. The title attribute is read correctly by NVDA and two > versions of Jaws. > > Does the title attribute have enough support to be considered a > sufficient technique? The purpose of AT is to help their users work on the real web. That means they have to reflect common abuses, and may actually not handle properly written HTML well, out of the box, because it is less common than abuses. The fact that AT manages to make badly coded sites usable should not be used as a vindication for the bad coding. -- 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 Thursday, 24 May 2012 07:42:22 UTC