Re: Updated Guidelines

>http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-WAI-UA-BROWSER-0518.htm

Concerning C1:

User agents should offer the option of showing an image's *replacement
text* as an alternative to showing an image's *description*.  The former
option is directed towards those who want a page's content while the latter
is directed towards those who want a visual Web page described to them.

The ALT attribute provides replacement text (not a description) while the
TITLE attribute gives a title of the image--usually a brief description,
but not necessarily a tool tip.  I don't see why the NAME attribute (of A?)
is mentioned since it really has nothing to do with the image.  Is there
any reason why we shouldn't just use the algorithm given in the HTML 4.0
Recommendation at <http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/appendix/notes.html#h-B.9>?

Concerning C2:

If images are turned off, sound (or Java, etc.) may still be desired, so we
shouldn't require UAs to use the innermost text of the OBJECT element.  UAs
should use the first supported alternative that is not an image.

The alternative content of the OBJECT is not necessarily a description of
the image.  The alternative content is by definition a replacement for the
image, which in many cases does not involve describing the image.  For
example, the content for an OBJECT that embeds a navigational image map is
typically a list of links rather than a description of the image map.

If there is no alternative content for the OBJECT element, then we have to
assume that the author intends for the object to be purely decorative, so
that the non-graphical user need not be aware of it.  For those users who
want visual Web pages described to them, UAs can substitute the TITLE of
the OBJECT.  With empty OBJECTs, the object's filename should not be
displayed to the user who just wants the content--no OBJECT content means
that there is no content.

Concerning C3:

The D-link should not be made available if the user only wants the content.
 We need to distinguish between users who want content and users who want a
visual Web page described to them.  There should be separate user options
for each.

Concerning E1:

The draft suggests using the ALT attribute as alternative content for the
APPLET element.  Since APPLET allows a richer alternative as the content of
the element, UAs should use the content of the APPLET element instead.  If
the content is empty, UAs should use the ALT attribute (which is redundant
and shouldn't be used by authors).

-- 
Liam Quinn
Web Design Group            Enhanced Designs, Web Site Development
http://www.htmlhelp.com/    http://enhanced-designs.com/

Received on Monday, 18 May 1998 18:31:56 UTC