The following is from the AGIMO website.
FAQ
*Q. We have placed a lot of our documents on our website in PDF format,
which is not readily accessible to people with sight disabilities. Apart
from converting these documents to alternative formats, which we can't
afford, what can we do?*
A. It is g
accessibility validators will let you know if you missed an alt
attribute and will suggest adding titles where there are either
sketchy titles or no titles at all.
dwain
On 5/27/08, Jason Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> hmm... is accessibility not a feature of standards compliance? I'm
> forgett
hmm... is accessibility not a feature of standards compliance? I'm
forgetting whether the W3C HTML validator will reject img elements without
the alt attribute, or if it's just the accessibility validators that do so.
Jason
On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 10:55 AM, dwain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On
On 5/27/08, Jason Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The alt attribute should always be included in order to be standards
> compliant,
and accessible
the title is optional.
some accessibility software i use says it's a good idea to use a title
for accessibility reasons. the software is adesigner
Jessica Enders wrote:
Also, if it helps, I'm thinking about RTF for /forms/, not general
text documents.
Oh, ok -- it certainly cannot represent accessible forms.
Even the latest RTF 1.9.1 (March 2008) does not appear to support form
field labels, for example.
--
.Matthew Holloway
http://ho
The information in the alt attribute will only display when the image is not
available - this is particularly useful for people with disabilities using
text readers, or people browsing with images turned off (people on dial-up
connections might do this). The alt attribute is used to describe what t
Hi Scott
Scott Barnes wrote:
How do folks find the new OOXML format in regards to this line of thinking?
Ah, now this is something I know about...
Firstly there is no new OOXML format yet. No one, not even the voting
bodies that represent each nation, saw a final OOXML spec when voting.
Those guys at berea street are good!!
I always find useful stuff on that site ... :)
- susie
On 28/5/08 6:49 AM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Can anyone give me a clear example/explanation of the difference
>> between the alt attribute and the title attribute? How about
On May 27, 2008, at 3:43 PM, Andrew Freedman wrote:
kate provided the following information on 28/05/2008 5:21 AM:
The alt tag which is'nt really the right discription is really
called the attribute tag.
Kate
Patrick H. Lauke also provided the following information on
28/05/2008 5:33 AM:
> Can anyone give me a clear example/explanation of the difference
> between the alt attribute and the title attribute? How about a real
> 'attributes for dummies' reference?? The difference seems very slight
> to me...
>
Hi Tom,
Try this link:
http://www.456bereastreet.com/archive/200412/the
I agree.
I have rarely seen any course in web technologies that you couldn't
get further for much less money with either a video tutorial from
places like lynda.com or from good how to books from great publishers
like new riders, friends of ed, o'reilleys, etc.
you can study at your own p
I'm not sure exactly what the spec says, go read it, but alt stands
for alternative so the content would be represented alternatively when
say the other content was unavailble. Where as title is meant to
provide additional information related to the content such as a title.
So
2008/5/27 Tom
kate provided the following information on 28/05/2008 5:21 AM:
The alt tag which is'nt really the right discription is really called
the attribute tag.
Kate
Patrick H. Lauke also provided the following information on 28/05/2008
5:33 AM:
or...the alt attribute, if you want to correct people...
On 5/27/08, Andrew Freedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Tom Livingston provided the following information on 28/05/2008 3:26 AM:
>
> > Can anyone give me a clear example/explanation of the difference
> > between the alt attribute and the title attribute? How about a real
> > 'attributes for dum
Tom Livingston provided the following information on 28/05/2008 3:26 AM:
Can anyone give me a clear example/explanation of the difference
between the alt attribute and the title attribute? How about a real
'attributes for dummies' reference?? The difference seems very slight
to me...
Hi Tom,
kate wrote:
The alt tag which is'nt really the right discription is really called
the attribute tag.
or...the alt attribute, if you want to correct people...
--
Patrick H. Lauke
__
re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postposit
The alt tag which is'nt really the right discription is really called the
attribute tag.
Kate
- Original Message -
From: "Andrew Freedman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 8:10 PM
Subject: Re: [WSG] Alt versus Title Attribute
Tom Livingston provided the following
Tom Livingston provided the following information on 28/05/2008 3:26 AM:
Can anyone give me a clear example/explanation of the difference
between the alt attribute and the title attribute? How about a real
'attributes for dummies' reference?? The difference seems very slight
to me...
Hi Tom
How do folks find the new OOXML format in regards to this line of thinking? In
that I'm curious to see what WSG thinks of it and how it fits in with future
potential.
-
Scott Barnes
{Product Manager}
Microsoft.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Beha
Hello list,
I know this might seem basic, and I searched, but came up confused...
Can anyone give me a clear example/explanation of the difference
between the alt attribute and the title attribute? How about a real
'attributes for dummies' reference?? The difference seems very slight
to me...
Th
This topic is very interesting. As a screen reader user I have enjoyed always
getting Rich Text files. I use to get bills in HTML which was great. However,
everything is now PDFs. I hate PDFs! With a little more care, you could do
everything a PDF does in an HTML file. I use a RTF editor called
> I think your misunderstanding lies earlier than my last post.
>
> If someone wishes to use an tag in the way that it was intended
> by the spec, then that is perfectly acceptable, obviously. If their
> scripting then fails in IE they have three clear choices - write a more
> robust script, chan
Jessica Enders wrote:
I am trying to work out whether a Rich Text File is considered
accessible, to the extent that Australian federal government agencies
must provide electronic documents in an accessible format.
Is there a list of accessibility features that a format must allow, or
does the
> if styles are used correctly, RTF files can be used well by screen readers.
RTF doesn't use 'styles' in the way that Word (or HTML) does, it
applies presentation tags, the semantic based styles that Word has
(e.g. Heading 1) are not there. There's an example on the Wikipedia
page:
http://en.wiki
I was thinking that XML files must be accessible but also stuctured
for the purpose to deliver txt information.
Michael
Andrew Boyd wrote:
Same holds for three other Australian government organisations that
I've worked in/around.
It is necessary to separate this discussion from "how do I mak
Hi Jessica,
Understood, I work for a company who specialise in the Adobe LiveCycle
dynamic PDF technologies.
The PDF & RTF formats for attachments to content items, are a whole of
Australian Government accessibility directive. These are typically not
forms, although in some instances like Court
Jessica Enders wrote:
I should clarify that I'm not a Microsoft-basher! The only reason I
mentioned it is that ownership of a standard might be considered, by
some, to compromise accessibility.
Also, if it helps, I'm thinking about RTF for /forms/, not general text
documents. I think this mak
Same holds for three other Australian government organisations that
I've worked in/around.
It is necessary to separate this discussion from "how do I make PDF accessible?"
Cheers, Andrew
On 5/27/08, Rae Buerckner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Jessica,
>
> The 2 formats most commonly provided f
28 matches
Mail list logo