W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > September 2007

Re: alt attribute comments?

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2007 19:39:21 +0200
To: "Steven Faulkner" <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Cc: www-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.ty4bbvn364w2qv@annevk-t60.oslo.opera.com>

On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 19:23:47 +0200, Steven Faulkner  
<faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote:
> So in the process od building the tool you decided not to provide a  
> facility to add alt, so while conforming to the draft html 5 spec you  
> both failed to conform with ATAG and WCAG 1.0 for the tools output. I  
> suppose one will go to great lengths to prove a point :-)

I needed something simple to share photos with family. This was reasonably  
simple for me to make and for them to go through.

>> It's also not really clear to me what description would be
>> adequate enough, but that's a separate issue.
> i think this is  somewhat spurious as people with half the skills that  
> you possess could provide a few words that would be a halfway decent
> alt text, definitely better than none at all.

Maybe. Not sure if I like halfway decent though :-)

>> Correct. Note that this would be true for <img alt=""> as well except  
>> that there the end user does not know there's an image at all on the  
>> site and
>> therefore can't ask software or maybe a real person to describe the  
>> image for him.
> For the most part the user won't know there is an image on the site with  
> no alt attribute as the AT dosn't inform the user of the images presence  
> when it has no alt  attribute (unless the image is the sole content of a  
> link). so won't be able to ask software or a person to describe the  
> image for them.

Yeah, maybe a magic string would be better, but it seems rather ugly and  
wouldn't degrade well either.

Anne van Kesteren
Received on Sunday, 23 September 2007 17:39:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:33:15 UTC