David Dixon wrote:
<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.
But isn't the alt text attribute of the above example too long? 91
characters inculding spaces? I always take care not have more that 60
characters including spaces, and in the worse case no more than 70.
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.
I was just wondering, if novice Internet users would really understand
the meaning of the graphics, and I thought it would be necessary using
at least the alt tag. Or?
<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.
Good points David.
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
******************************************************
--
John S. Britsios
Web Architect & Marketing Consultant
Webnauts Net (Main Office)
Koblenzer Str. 37A
D-33613 Bielefeld
Webnauts Net (U.S. Office)
5 Ivanhoe Drive
Urbana IL 61802
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web address: http://www.webnauts.net
******************************************************
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
******************************************************
