On 14/08/06, Aaron Leventhal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I hadn't considered putting an alt text on it, because the image's
function is described by the role itself.
It's got nothing to do with it's function, you've got an image in the
page, to be accessible a user has to be able to find out what the
image is - unless it's purely decorative where you could have an empty
one - but this is a functional image - so it must have an ALT, there
is no discussion
Does the image for a checkbox using a standard html need an alt text?
The standard HTML checkbox is not an image, it's a checkbox...
So, I'm not sure why you stopped looking after
that
Because you claimed something was truly accessible, when you'd not
made the first step of ensuring images have ALT text, say, here's an
example which makes an image used as a checkbox accessible to some
screen readers, and if you put in a lot of other work you could make
it accessible to other people would've been okay, but you didn't you
chose to claim it was truly accessible.
It seems like something else is bothering you about my message.
Just the all too common claim of accessibility authors not actually
increasing accessibility just moving it to a different group having
problems.
In any
case, I'm only here as a fellow colleague providing food for thought. I
hope that's not a problem.
Oh definately not, your work is very useful! Just don't make the
mistake of over-claiming what you do, the examples are not accessible,
they aren't unfortunately.
The core is, accessibility is important and
no doubt there are places where whatwg does things better,
I don't think the what-wg does a good job of accessibility at all,
there are some good ideas certainly, but there's also a lot of badness
due to the degrading to a whole heap of script that's required in a
number of areas.
Your work on Role is very good, and I'd certainly encourage you to
stay participating in the what-wg.
Jim.
