|
|
Posted by Alan J. Flavell on 08/04/06 21:50
On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, mbstevens wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 21:25:23 +0100, Alan J. Flavell wrote:
>
> > Sure. Haven't you heard about the "title=" attribute, for supplying
> > optional additional information about the element to which it's
> > applied? Doesn't that seem to fit the description of what you
> > just said that you wanted?
>
> * It is a bad idea to try to guess an author's intention.
Indeed. That's why I'm trying to avoid it. Instead, I'm trying to
help to inform authors about the stated purposes of various
attributes, guidelines to their use, and to show them some samples of
where it went horribly wrong (my alt text howlers collection), and
invite them to apply the principles in such a way that they accord
with *their* intentions.
> Authors can intend a huge range of things.
They can still apply some principles and guidelines in accomplishing
their intentions.
> Their bosses can intend a huge range of things.
Their bosses rarely seem to understand how the web works. if their
monkeys do exactly what they are told by their bosses, instead of
interpreting the demands in the framework of the web, they may very
well find their intending could well blow a raspberry in their general
direction...
> * The title of a logo is not necessarily "logo".
I sense the development of a number of SMAs. That was one of them.
> * It _is_ a good idea to try to guess what a visitor will want
> from a page.
Sure: but since their wants can be so diverse, and often enough
mutually contradictory, that needs to be handled with care. That's
one of the reasons for having explanatory stuff in the HTML
specification, and accessibility guidelines.
> But an author should allow for a wide range of visitors.
I don't see anyone around here claiming that they shouldn't.
> I explained to David why some blind persons
> might like to have the information that what they are 'looking'
> at is a logo.
I once read a detailed rant from a blind contributor, whose
contribution to the discussion was that a web page was axiomatically a
visual experience, and he demanded to have every tiny visual detail
described and explained to him.
Since every different browser/version, and even screen size and
"resolution" setting, will show a page differently in one way or
another, I have no idea how to fullfil his demand.
Other blind contributors opined that what a web page contained was
foremost *content*, which they wanted to access, and they sure didn't
want to be pestered by descriptions of visual clutter, such as
alt"small red bullet", nor variants on alt="our logo", with or without
a statement of whose logo it was and/or what it looked like.
You have three attributes of the img tag at your mercy for offering
these various items. I say use them according to the guidelines, so
that a fair range of users' wishes can be accommodated without
upsetting those whose demands are different.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|