Re: Another summary of alt="" issues and why the spec says what it says

On Fri, 18 Apr 2008, Jim Jewett wrote:
> 
> > Wouldn't that require that the image be described somewhere? The whole 
> > point here is that we don't know what the image is.
> 
> Yes -- but the description, like alt text in practice, need not be 
> perfect.
>
> There are plenty of reasons that "good enough" alt text may not be 
> available, but no one has come up with an example where *nothing* was 
> known about the image.  You just posted your four main examples, and 
> there was indeed information.  Not as much as we would like, but quite a 
> bit more than nothing.
> 
> You then said that information wasn't suitable for alt text, because it 
> should be in a visible element instead -- which it could be, if 
> aria-describedby were used to link the two elements.

I guess, though I don't really understand what practical benefit there is 
to linking the description to the image using aria-describedby.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Friday, 18 April 2008 05:49:00 UTC