|
|
Posted by dorayme on 04/16/07 05:21
In article <2n9bf4-jbo.ln1@xword.teksavvy.com>,
"Chris F.A. Johnson" <cfajohnson@gmail.com> wrote:
> ume 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.
If it is a terrible bore to add alt text to images, and assuming
that one overcomes the boringness of naming pictures in some
meaningful way (I tend to in order to keep track of them) then
you can let your machine fill in alt text with some simple GREP
replacement, taking the text in the src name and repeating it
with or without the file extension. Better than no alt text and
definitely better than a poke in the eye with a burnt stick.
--
dorayme
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|