|
|
Posted by Chris F.A. Johnson on 04/16/07 04:12
On 2007-04-16, Neredbojias wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 00:40:40 GMT Leif K-Brooks scribed:
>
>> Neredbojias wrote:
>>> I kinda agree with you, notably on the 'alt=""' thing and stuff of a
>>> similar nature. That's what _defaults_ are for.
>>
>> alt="" is very rarely a reasonable value. More often than not, when the
>> alt attribute is omitted, there is a useful, non-empty value that the
>> Web designer was simply too lazy to add. Having those cases flagged by
>> the validator seems like a good idea.
>
> Depends on the attitude you have. I host many pages that are basically
> mini art galleries: selected images by a certain artist or under the
> auspices of a particular theme. Now sure, I could alt each thumbnail with
> various information such as pic title or description of the image, etc.
> But it's still just a thumb, and for those who can't see the thumb, one
> must presume he/she can't see the image-link, either, so why bother with a
> description to something inaccessible?
That is exactly when you *should* use alt text. If I am viewing
the page in Lynx, I can select an image and have it open in
whatever viewer I have set Lynx to use. If there's no alt text, I
won't know what it is and probably ignore it.
The time that it makes sense to use an empty alt attribute is when
the image adds nothing substantive to the page, e.g., when it is
purely decorative or redundant.
> To put it in even simpler and more general terms, I do not accept
> the universality of the necessity for alt text and believe
> disclaimers are usually mere pedantry.
--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
========= Do not reply to the From: address; use Reply-To: ========
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|