- From: Catherine Laws <claws@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 14:04:19 -0500
- To: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
- Cc: WAI-UA list <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <OF0F309C98.DE349201-ON86257354.0066EE68-86257354.0068C426@us.ibm.com>
If the alt (or title) attribute is omitted for an image or image link, what are the choices the user agent has? 1. Render part or all of the src or href attribute. 2. Render something generic, like "image" or "image link" or the element tag. 3. Render some other attribute that exists (name or ID). 4. Assume the image or image link is not important and render nothing at all. Of these, which would the user think is the best choice? I think #4 violates this and other UAAG checkpoints, so is unacceptable. The author doesn't say what the UAAG sufficent techniques should be in this case for checkpoint 2.7 Repair missing content, only what the techniques shouldn't be. Cathy Laws IBM Research Human Ability & Accessibility Center 11501 Burnet Road, Bldg 904 Office 5D016, Austin, Texas 78758 Phone: (512) 838-4595 FAX: (512) 246-8502 E-mail: claws@us.ibm.com, Web: http://www.ibm.com/able Jan Richards <jan.richards@uto ronto.ca> To Sent by: WAI-UA list <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org> w3c-wai-ua-reques cc t@w3.org Subject A link to comments on 2.7 Repair 09/12/2007 12:42 Missing Content PM People on the x-tech list are no doubt seeing the back and forth about whether alt should be required... In a recent x-tech posting ()http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/wai-xtech/2007Sep/0081.html) I noticed a link with some interesting things to say about UAAG 1.0, checkpoint 2.7 "Repair Missing Content": The entry is called the "The price of omitting the alt" (http://www.isolani.co.uk/blog/access/ThePriceOfOmittingTheAlt) Cheers, Jan
Attachments
- image/gif attachment: graycol.gif
- image/gif attachment: pic24142.gif
- image/gif attachment: ecblank.gif
Received on Wednesday, 12 September 2007 19:05:10 UTC