Actually, yeah, you are completely correct. The alt text I showed was a
pretty poor choice on my part. Again, I still would not have the alt
text as empty in this case, as it is my impression that the images add
to the surrounding text... where in the text does it say that a
wheelchair is a symbol for accessibility?
I would probably revise the img tag itself to read something like:
<img src="/images/accessibility.jpg" width="100" height="89" alt="The
imagery of a person on a wheelchair is generally considered a symbol for
accessibility" title="An image of a wheelchair: the symbol for
accessibility">
... or at least something along those lines.
I can see why you want to leave the alt empty (or even use css to
deliver the image), but I think it falls down to the context where the
image is placed. If we're some background image for a header, then yes,
css would most likely be the way to go (or empty alt text). But I see
these particular images, not as decoration or background, but as
complimentary examples of imagery associated with the content being
discussed.
For example, if the paragraph was talking about smoking being banned in
public areas (a subject that unfortunately affects me personally), then
if the image was replaced with a no smoking sign, then while the image
wouldn't add to understanding of the text, is does provide a visual
reference to the imagery of the subject, so alt text such as "the common
symbol for no smoking is the cigarette inside a red circle with a line
through it" (or something that effect).
Thanks,
David.
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
David Dixon wrote:
you can use the alt attribute to describe the image itself
which would vastly improve the accessibility (eg. "An image of a
wheelchair, a symbol for accessibility").
No, that's a bad example of alt text. The alt text should serve the
same purpose as the image, not necessarily describe it. The only cases
where the alt text should describe the image is when the content is
actually talking about the image itself.
This case appears to be one of those edge cases where there are good
arguments to include the image within the markup and others to include
it within the CSS. However, it all comes down to whether or not the
image is *semantically relevant* to the content, not just whether or not
it is presentational.
In this case, the wheelchair icon, being an iconic representation of the
surrounding text, is semantically relevant to the content. However, it
does not convey any additional meaning beyond that conveyed by the
surrounding text, and so it should have no alternate text.
The text you proposed is not suitable as alt text because it describes
the image, not the purpose of the image. It would, however, be suitable
content for the title attribute.
You could markup the image like this:
<img src="/images/accessibility.jpg" width="100" height="89" alt=""
title="An image of a wheelchair: the symbol for accessibility">
Here are some very useful resources that describe how to write suitable
alternate text
http://joeclark.org/book/sashay/serialization/Chapter06.html
http://hixie.ch/advocacy/alttext
http://www.htmlhelp.com/feature/art3.htm
******************************************************
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
******************************************************
