- 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
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 <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Sunday, 23 September 2007 17:39:44 UTC