On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 19:23:47 +0200, Steven Faulkner
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So in the process od building the tool you decided not to provide a
facility to add alt, so while conforming to the draft html 5 spec you
both failed to conform with ATAG and WCAG 1.0 for the tools output. I
suppose one will go to great lengths to prove a point :-)
I needed something simple to share photos with family. This was reasonably
simple for me to make and for them to go through.
It's also not really clear to me what description would be
adequate enough, but that's a separate issue.
i think this is somewhat spurious as people with half the skills that
you possess could provide a few words that would be a halfway decent
alt text, definitely better than none at all.
Maybe. Not sure if I like halfway decent though :-)
Correct. Note that this would be true for <img alt=""> as well except
that there the end user does not know there's an image at all on the
site and
therefore can't ask software or maybe a real person to describe the
image for him.
For the most part the user won't know there is an image on the site with
no alt attribute as the AT dosn't inform the user of the images presence
when it has no alt attribute (unless the image is the sole content of a
link). so won't be able to ask software or a person to describe the
image for them.
Yeah, maybe a magic string would be better, but it seems rather ugly and
wouldn't degrade well either.
--
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
