First of all I would like to thank you all for your kind contribution.
Things got very complicated, because of all pros and conts, so I thought
of having a look again, what W3C recommends.
So I have visited the HTML Techniques for Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines 1.0 here
John S. Britsios wrote:
First of all I would like to thank you all for your kind contribution.
Things got very complicated, because of all pros and conts, so I thought
of having a look again, what W3C recommends.
So I have visited the HTML Techniques for Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines
John S. Britsios
So I have visited the HTML Techniques for Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines 1.0 here
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-HTML-TECHS/#image-text-equivalent
and I was
surprised to find there an example, that is 100% identical to
one of the
images of my site.
You *cannot*
David Dixon wrote:
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
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?
David Dixon wrote:
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
David Dixon wrote:
[...]
It would be useful to get a few more opinions on what others believe
the purpose is...
The purpose of 'text' in the alt-attribute it to expand/complete the
meaning - in context, (as close to) the same as the visible image itself
does.
Describing the image is not
OK everybody. Now back to reality.
He is a real world testing scenario:
I asked a novice/intermediate(?) Internet user without any known
disabilities to test a demo page I have created for that purpose (with
graphics rendered as background in CSS), and therefore no alt text
attributes
John S. Britsios wrote:
I asked a novice/intermediate(?) Internet user without any known
disabilities to test a demo page I have created for that purpose (with
graphics rendered as background in CSS), and therefore no alt text
attributes available, and her first question was: What do those
Sorry Georg, I appreciate the time you took in posting your response,
but I think you misunderstood my question.
I wasn't asking what was the opinion on the appropriateness of alt/title
text in a general sense, but what the opinion was on the purpose of the
image that was in question... is it
David Dixon wrote:
If you really are still concerned for size of the alt text though, then
keep in mind that JAWS appears to have a limit of around 150 characters
(although im yet to test this),
Joe Clark recommends that alt text be no longer than 1,024 characters
and I'm quite sure he'd
Hello everybody.
I have a question:
When an image is presented with one or more paragraphs of text, if the
image is relevant to the text in a symbolic way, but does not
technically add to the content, should it be displayed as an image
within the content, or should it be rendered with CSS?
Hi John,
There are perfectly valid reasons for using css to generate imagery, and
perfectly valid reasons for using the img tag to do the same. I think
some developers/designers go too far sometimes in trying to use css as
their miracle tool to the detriment of a) the website's accessibility
David Dixon wrote:
I would even go as far as saying that
example wheelchair image DOES technically add to the content (its a
visual representation of a disabled/wheelchair bound person, and an
important visual clue as to the purpose of the content (what do you
notice first, the wheelchair
I'm of the opinion that if images are *not* informative or functional
(merely decorative) that they should be rendered with CSS.
If they are informative or functional (i.e. graphic images for
navigation, headings, etc.) I think they should be part of the html
document and have a relevant alt
The argument you have brought up here Patrick is a fundamental reason
why I treat usability and accessibility as two sides of the same coin.
You are probably correct that if using a screen reader, the user would
more than likely get the same information from the page, however the
flow at
David Dixon wrote:
You are probably correct that if using a screen reader, the user would
more than likely get the same information from the page, however the
flow at which they get the information would not be the same as someone
without visual impairment. That is the difference from making
Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
David Dixon wrote:
You are probably correct that if using a screen reader, the user would
more than likely get the same information from the page, however the
flow at which they get the information would not be the same as
someone without visual impairment. That is
Apologies for the previous message. It was a TAB - ENTER keyboard
combination at exactly the WRONG place.
Mark Sheppard wrote:
I'm of the opinion that if images are *not* informative or functional
(merely decorative) that they should be rendered with CSS.
...
The alt text, in my opinion,
Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
Fine, I'll agree to disagree with you here then. To me, having the ALT
text in there
Accessibility Testing Consulting - A wheelchair. A symbol for
accessibility - Accessibility is a term...
Is redundant, compared to
Accessibility Testing Consulting -
Thierry Koblentz wrote:
I don't read it like this.
For me, the former says a graphic representing a wheelchair is a symbol for
accessibility.
The latter skips that info.
But does that stop you from understanding the page, carrying out any
functionality offered by the page, etc? Because going
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
Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
Thierry Koblentz wrote:
I don't read it like this.
For me, the former says a graphic representing a wheelchair is a
symbol for accessibility.
The latter skips that info.
But does that stop you from understanding the page, carrying out any
functionality offered by
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
I think I may have cut myself short on that last paragraph, but
hopefully you get the idea of what I was attempting to explain :)
I wrote (about 30 secs ago):
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
David Dixon wrote:
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
Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
David Dixon wrote:
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:
I would like to contribute this article to this discussion. Not everyone
will agree with my thinking, but it may offer some value.
http://green-beast.com/blog/?p=81
Sincerely,
Mike Cherim
http://green-beast.com/
http://accessites.org/
http://graybit.com/
28 matches
Mail list logo
