RE: Point of clarification in alt debate(s)

And, of course, search engines and anyone else trying to make any kind of
semantic decision about the document. Nonetheless, that is still not reason
to make "alt" a required attribute. As in favor as I am of using it for all
of these reasons, it is contrary to HTML's historical "looseness" to require
it. Much of the reason why HTML was adopted so quickly was because, unlike
SGML, it was possible for Joe Six Pack to edit HTML.

J.Ja

-----Original Message-----
From: public-html-request@w3.org [mailto:public-html-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of David Poehlman
Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 5:03 PM
To: Steven Faulkner; HTML WG; wai-xtech@w3.org
Subject: Re: Point of clarification in alt debate(s)


and they are still around, people who use text only clients.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steven Faulkner" <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
To: "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>; <wai-xtech@w3.org>
Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 4:10 PM
Subject: Point of clarification in alt debate(s)



In recent emails concerning the alt some people have characterised the
beneficiaries of text alternatives in their arguments, as the "blind".

People who can benefit from text alternatives on images (including
image map areas, and input type="Image") include:

*People with dyslexia and other congenital or aquired cognitive
disabilities who use
voice browsers to read the web.
*People who have impaired motor skills who use speech recognition software
*People with vision impairment who use magnifier /readers
*People with vision loss or impairment who use screen readers.



-- 
with regards

Steve Faulkner
Technical Director - TPG Europe
Director - Web Accessibility Tools Consortium

www.paciellogroup.com | www.wat-c.org
Web Accessibility Toolbar -
http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html

Received on Monday, 14 April 2008 04:18:57 UTC