It's been my experience that as soon as you mention screen readers ... they'll dismiss your claim out of hand and you'll never hear from them again, nor will you get the page fixed.
I don't disagree with you, but in this case, the page wasn't broken. Without bringing the screen reader into the conversation, there is nothing to complain about. Once you introduce the screen reader, it becomes obvious that it is the screen reader that is not working right, not the web master.
If you talk strictly about the html code, you're a lot more likely to get a response, and in general, at least something gets done.
I agree again, but you make my point that it is all the more import to get your terms right and to complain only about web code that is actually broken.
Unless it's an adaptive technology site, you're more likely to be ignored than you are to get a response if you mention screen readers.
Well mdtap.org is a disability oriented site, but they don't have control over that particular fragment. But the fragment comes from a state government site, so one can hope they would be more award than most. But even with all that it is quite counter productive to complain about alt on text links or to assert that title on text links is a bad idea.
