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 decorative purposes and adds no important information to the page, it doesn't need a description and putting it in CSS as background image makes sense. However, if the image needs a description, it should be in the html because it is content. If you do put it in the css and give a title to the div, it is wrong use of css. Is this correct and am i wrong? In the (odd) case i'm right, is there some spec that states that an image always needs a description? -- Best regards, Luc ________________________ http://www.dzinelabs.com Powered by The Bat! version 1.63 Beta/7 with Windows 2000 (build 2195), version 5.0 Service Pack 4 and using the best browser: Opera. "Observe your enemies for they first find out your faults." ***************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help *****************************************************
