[thelist] RE:

Joergen Ramskov mqy4fxax36001 at sneakemail.com
Thu Nov 8 04:37:12 CST 2001

> Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2001 11:09:41 -0800
> Subject: Re: [thelist] alt tags on all images (was Site Check)
> From: Paul Peterson <paul at thereformist.com>
> To: <thelist at lists.evolt.org>
> Reply-To: thelist at lists.evolt.org
> My rant response...
> However, those who for whatever reason don't want to or can't 
> view images
> should have just as much opportunity to access information in a usable
> fashion. After all, isn't that why the Web was originally created?

A problem is maybe that webdesigners doesn't have the tools to check their
site for that audience? My personal little site validates, but I haven't
checked how it works for users that can't see - how should I? I would like
to try one of those browsers blind people use, but I don't know of any!? I
could imagine those that exists, weren't free either? 
If such a *free* tool/browser existed, it would be much easier for
webdesigners, etc., to test their site for accessibility. Just using the
Bobby validator doesn't automatically make the site great, if I understand
it correctly?
> Does this mean therefore that we should have to name ALL our images,
> regardless of their function (or lack thereof)? Of course 
> not. In fact,
> including ALT values for every image could hinder rather than 
> help the text
> FOOBAR LOGO). And many designers believe ALT tags should be 
> descriptive, but
> that is not the intent. They should be *functionary*.
> How do we make sense of all this? By compromising: use ALT="" 
> for images
> which can be ignored, and be creative with your values for 
> images which
> serve a simple function (e.g. ALT="[*]" for bullet images).
It seems to me that the image tag is too limited. This is the way the
standard was created and it is far too late to change it, but maybe the
image tag should have had an "type" attribute, descriping what whether this
image is a bullet, a link or whatever? Standard image types demand an alt
tag, but not all of those types should. Another way would be to create new
[image] tags, but I'm not sure that would be a good way to do this.

Is it a good idea or have I missed something (I probably have :) )? 

No matter what, it will probably never be part of a standard, but you can
dream, can't you? :)

Joergen Ramskov

More information about the thelist mailing list