|
|
Posted by Neredbojias on 04/17/07 20:48
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 04:12:50 GMT Chris F.A. Johnson scribed:
>> 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.
Well, this also makes me think of what might happen in a graphical browser
with images turned off. Never having tired it, I don't know, but if the
alt text "comes thru", it could be somewhat useful, I suppose.
Nevertheless, I still disagree with you. There may be some validity in the
Lynx-image viewer postulate, but what percentage of the online population
is going to do something like that or would have to do something like that
in the first place? OK, there may be a (very) few cases, but isn't this
just another variation of the "least common denominator" epidemic? While
the numbers can certainly be modified for accessibility considerations, a
few "rogues" should definitely not influence policies designed for the
facility of the general public.
The bus companies of virtually all major cities in the US have a door-to-
door service for the handicapped. Yes, they will actually come and pick
you up at your house or apartment if you are disabled, aged, etc. The
buses on the general routes, however, which account for more than 99% of
the traffic, do not do this; they are not "handicapped" by special
liabilities (that are in this case extremely valid) and provide the
normalized service they were fleeted to provide. I simply do not see how
100,000+ web pages should be obligated to institute alt text for the 3 or 4
galoots who wouldn't even need it if they used other than optional
specialized software.
>
> 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.
-Or when the image means nothing if you can't see it. Descriptions may be
nice, but they shouldn't be obligatory.
>> 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.
--
Neredbojias
He who laughs last sounds like an idiot.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|