Chris Keane wrote:
> The http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd requires an alt
> attribute for images, and the HTML DTD shows a similar requirement:
My understanding follow. I write this from the perspective of having
just done an XHTML/accessibility/usability anal probe on a new .gov
> On Wed, 12 May 2004 15:06:46 -0400, Brian Foy wrote:
> > I have seen before (perhaps ALA?) that if the image is decorative a
> > simple "null" would surfice as an ALT tag.
Lea de Groot wrote:
> Syntactivally, this should be implemented as:
>
> ie, the alt attribute should be blank - a quoted s
On Wed, 12 May 2004 15:06:46 -0400, Brian Foy wrote:
> I have seen before (perhaps ALA?) that if the image is decorative a
> simple "null" would surfice as an ALT tag.
Syntactivally, this should be implemented as:
ie, the alt attribute should be blank - a quoted string of no length.
HIH
Lea
--
> > In the (odd) case i'm right, is there some spec that states that an
> > image always needs a description?
The http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd requires an alt
attribute for images, and the HTML DTD shows a similar requirement:
If the content of the image is not anything of meaning to someone who
can't see the image, then a simple alt="" would suffice as it would
validate xhtml.
if the image has some sort of text in it (for instance, a menu item),
then an alt tag needs to be present. but what if the image is surrounde
Hi Luc,
It's my understanding that if you want the page to validate and pass
some basic 508 stuff, ALT tags must be present for any images that are
included in the page markup.
I have seen before (perhaps ALA?) that if the image is decorative a
simple "null" would surfice as an ALT tag.
I think th
Good evening list,
My understanding is that an image _always_ needs a description for
accessibility purposes, even if the image is there for decorative
purposes and adds no important information to the page.
Now, somebody told me that, if the image is there purely for
decorativ
