On Apr 22, 2007, at 2:48 AM, Kornel Lesinski wrote:
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 01:26:55 +0100, Jon Barnett
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
By "entirely omitted alt", do you still only mean WYSIWYG
editors? If not, I agree. The distinction would be as follows:
(1) <img src="obvious.jpg" alt="obvious"> - This image represents
text,
particularly the word "obvious". Lynx should replace it with the
word
"obvious" and do nothing else.
(2) <img src="gallery2.jpg"> The image is part of the content and
doesn't represent text. Lynx should indicate that the image is
missing and offer a way to download it
I'm a bit worried about this one - authors too often forget (or
don't care) to add alt attribute, and this case gives it a
different meaning.
I think that for (2) there should be either magic alt value or some
way of specyfing that alt was intentionally omitted, and not
forgotten (special classname? presence of title attribute?).
How about:
<img src="gallery2.jpg" alt=""> -- image could be omitted without
changing the meaning of the document (screen readers or text-only
browsers could just skip it)
<img src="gallery2.jpg" noalt> -- image cannot be omitted without
changing the meaning, but no text equivalent is available (screen
readers or text-only browsers / mail clients should give some
indication that an image is there)
I'm not sure I like that better than just omitting alt entirely, but
I thought I'd throw it out there.
Regards,
Maciej
