- From: Joshue O Connor <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie>
- Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 13:31:22 +0000
- To: Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com>
- Cc: wai-xtech@w3.org
Dave Pawson wrote: > 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? Indeed. There is a degree of trust on the part of the user that the author is doing their best to provide them with appropriate information. That it is a quality, well designed site etc. I guess, the acid test it whether the user will continue therefore to use a site or service or whether they move onto something better that suits their needs. > 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? Yes. I suppose there will always be lazy authors and the best that spec can do is some kind of damage limitation that on top of designing better tools, education etc. > 'no text equivalent' as alt text at least says something, perhaps still > leaving the reader edgy that he/she has missed something. It is arguable that there could be times when there is 'no text equivalent' either needed or wanted. > '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? Perhaps, but is that a user agent issue to a degree? What are others thoughts? Cheers Josh
Received on Thursday, 15 November 2007 13:31:40 UTC