- From: Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 12:29:38 +0000
- To: joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie
- Cc: wai-xtech@w3.org
Just picking up on one assumption Joshua. On 15/11/2007, Joshue O Connor <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie> wrote: > > * function and need for @alt="" > > > > I think that the WAI would say an example where an image is > > an interpretation of the accompanying text material is an > > inappropriate use for @alt="". This obscures the point that > > there are cases where *no text equivalent* is the right > > text equivalent. Conventionally, this has been encoded > > @alt="". > > These are cases where the user experience is in no way diminished by the > lack of an accessible text alternative, so yes. In as much as the user > can already glean sufficient information for the text within the document. As a document author you might be able to make that judgment. As a reader how can you know that that assessment has been made? The comparison is an author who is lazy and his tool inserts alt="" by default. The other is the conscientious author who does the same affirmatively knowing that the surrounding text provides the same information? 'no text equivalent' as alt text at least says something, perhaps still leaving the reader edgy that he/she has missed something. 'no text equivalent needed' is a bit cocky IMO, even if true according to the author; perhaps a shorter version of 'image information provided in associated text' is an improvement? regards -- Dave Pawson XSLT XSL-FO FAQ. http://www.dpawson.co.uk
Received on Thursday, 15 November 2007 12:29:49 UTC