- From: Matthew Raymond <mattraymond@earthlink.net>
- Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 20:12:42 -0400
- To: Laurens Holst <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl>
- CC: HTML WG Public List <public-html@w3.org>
Laurens Holst wrote: > Matthew Raymond schreef: >> The content we're talking about isn't supposed to describe an image, >> it's supposed to replace it. There's a difference. Remember when Prince >> was using that unpronounceable symbol as his name? A description would >> tell you what that symbol looks like (and you'd probably want to put >> that description in the |title| attribute). The replacement content >> would be "the artist formerly known as Prince". > > I’d say it’s the other way around, actually. Alternative text should be > the description of the looks, and title should be the artist formerly > known as prince. Alt text should describe how the image looks, so that > blind people can get an idea of it without seeing it. Seeing as |alt| is required and |title| is not, I fail to see why the required attribute would give a description while the optional element would tell you what the symbol actually signifies. Are you suggesting that in the absence of a |title| and a failure of the image to load, that people could determine it's the Artist formerly know as Prince by the description of the symbol?!? > Note that aside from ‘the artist formerly known as Prince’, that ‘the > symbol’ is also used (iirc). ‘The symbol’ would make a better (though > minimal) alt-text. I'm not familiar with "the symbol" having been used to address Prince, and I suspect many others have never heard of it either.
Received on Wednesday, 4 April 2007 00:13:23 UTC