Posted by Charles Sweeney on 11/27/99 11:24

GreyWyvern wrote

> Charles Sweeney <me@charlessweeney.com> wrote:
>
>> GreyWyvern wrote
>>
>>> The obvious alt text
>>> for a logo would be the name of the company/organization it
>>> represents.
>>
>> The obvious alt text would be "company name logo".
>
> No. You're hung up on the mechanics of how browsers put together
> pages, with all the various pieces of technology, when instead you
> should be considering them part of a document structure which works
> regardless if certain parts are disabled.

Not at all. I simply don't see how "Joe Bloggs logo" is a disservice to
a visitor.

> If someone is browsing with images off, it's pretty certain they are
> doing so for a reason. "company name logo" tells them they are
> *missing* something, while using the name of the company tells them
> *what* they are missing.

Not sure if you have misunderstood me. By "company name logo" I mean
(as in the example above) "Joe Bloggs logo", where "Joe Bloggs" is the
name of the company.

So "Joe Bloggs logo", tells the user that the comapny name is "Joe
Bloggs", and that there is a logo there too, which they can choose to
view or ignore.

> Think about it: what is the purpose of a
> company logo? Most often it is to identify the company. How does
> "company name logo" identify the company?

This was discussed in another reply. A logo is a visual identifier.
You *cannot* represent an image with words. This is not up for debate.

> Is all your alt text just a teaser to get people with images turned
> off to load them to see what they're missing? Don't you think that's
> a little presumptuous? What if your visitors are blind?

Not at all. It tells them there is an image there, and gives them a
brief description of it. If visitors are blind, they still get the same
words that a person trying to do the impossible (representing an image
with words) would use, but preceded with "Picture of..."

--
Charles Sweeney
http://CharlesSweeney.com

[Back to original message]