<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">
How is that alt text *relevant* to the content at all?
Relevant to the content? From your own list of resources the alt
attribute "should be a textual alternative for the meaning of the
image". It has no more relevance to the content than the image itself,
and as the image's purpose is to show the user that the wheelchair is a
symbol for accessibility (with further advisory explanation from the
title element), then I believe the above example is perfectly valid.
Ive even run tests against JAWS and the nice FF extension "Fangs" to
ascertain the behaviour of the screen reader for this particular
example, and as neither gives any indication of the advisory title text,
then I believe the alt attribute should be giving the same message as
the "full image" (ie the image plus the advisory information). Of course
this is personal preference, but as Ive stated earlier, ensuring a page
is accessible should be trying to make the page as usable and
understandable for a less-abled person as for an abled person.
<img src="mycomputer" alt="An image of a computer" title="Shows the disk
drives and hardware connected to this computer"> My Computer
<img src="" alt="The image of a folder and magnifying glass is the
symbol for Windows Explorer" title="Displays the files and folders on
your computer."> Windows Explorer
<img src="word" alt="The Microsoft Word icon is a blue W inside a
square" title="Create and edit text and graphics in letters, reports,
Web pages, or e-mail messages by using Microsoft Office Word.">
Microsoft Word
I dont find these examples relevant to the context of my example. For my
example, the image had a context for which is was designed... the
content regarding accessibility. These examples of desktop icons, have
no such context. They are their own context, in addition, their usage is
vastly different, in a web type example, these would be links, with the
image itself being a graphical representation of the text beside it,
much like my earlier example of using the accessibility logo as a
background to a header. As with that previous example, I would mark up
the image differently than the image in this example.
Also, as for Patrick's "nth degree" explanation, I dont see the point in
explaining every single aspect of the image itself to verbatim. Enough
to explain the purpose of the image itself is quite sufficient. Also, my
alt text does not describe the image itself (ie i dont say "this is a
symbol of a yellow person in a yellow wheelchair"), but saying what the
image describes "a person in a wheelchair is a symbol for accessibility"
gives the same meaning as the image itself.
As for my cigarette example, then yes, I think giving a hint as to
colour of the symbol is valid, as this symbol is universal (at least in
the UK). The red circle itself symbolises something which is not
permitted. If you were to explain what a no smoking symbol looked like
without saying the circle was red (even if they have no concept of red
looks like) would give a lesser clue as to its purpose as providing its
colour. In fact, just saying a red circle, would probably give the idea
of something that is not permitted, even before saying it has a picture
of a cigarette in it.
Thanks,
David.
******************************************************
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
******************************************************
