|
|
Posted by Neredbojias on 04/21/07 22:15
On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 15:33:21 GMT Adrienne Boswell scribed:
> Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Neredbojias
> <neredbojias@gmail.com> writing in
> news:Xns99199461EF60nanopandaneredbojias@208.49.80.251:
>
>> What would you provide for an advertisement? "Ad pic"? If so, that
>> is a description, too.
>>
>
> Not necessarily ... think about advertising on radio. They are not so
> much describing the product, as pitching it. Same thing would be true
> here. <img src="people_enjoying_themselves.png" alt="Buy some widget
> and your life will be better, too!" width="width" height="height">
Well, the phrase "ad pic" _is_ a description, albeit a terse one.
Nevertheless, I don't necessarily disagree with you regarding the "pitch"
concept. My point, however, is that alt text for _all_ images is
ludicrous.
I have a site with a page containing 20 or so thumbnail images of van Gogh
paintings. If the images cannot be seen (by a particular user), what is
the purpose of providing alt text? Sure, one could contrive an obscure
situation to conjure some meaningful connection (-such as the visitor has
images turned off for speed but wants to see if anything he desires is
available...) but if that really is supposed to be part of the providence
of alt text, I am definitely an earnest dissenter.
In my opinion, alt text should have a common default which should probably
be nothing more than it's non-inclusion. There is enough parasitic crap
obfuscating the fundamental simplicity of web pages as it is. Why add
more?
--
Neredbojias
He who laughs last sounds like an idiot.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|