E-mail List Archives
Re: WCAG
From: Geof Collis
Date: Mar 2, 2010 1:33PM
- Next message: Moore,Michael (DARS): "Re: WCAG"
- Previous message: Jared Smith: "Re: WCAG"
- Next message in Thread: Moore,Michael (DARS): "Re: WCAG"
- Previous message in Thread: Jared Smith: "Re: WCAG"
- View all messages in this Thread
I think I'll go with it as it sounds correct to me. I've always
understood that 150 characters was the max
cheers
Geof
At 02:01 PM 3/2/2010, you wrote:
>On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Geof Collis < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
> > One of the Validators I use says it is 150 characters and gives an
> > error if it is over.
>
>Then the validator is simply applying an arbitrary definition of
>accessibility. Any validator result that flags something like this as
>an error should be viewed with great caution. In this case, if the
>alternative text is appropriate and still over 150 characters, then
>simply ignore the error and carry on. However, the instances of
>appropriate alternative text being over 150 characters are quite rare.
>Luckily we, as intelligent humans, rather than tools get to decide
>what is and is not accessible.
>
>Jared
>
- Next message: Moore,Michael (DARS): "Re: WCAG"
- Previous message: Jared Smith: "Re: WCAG"
- Next message in Thread: Moore,Michael (DARS): "Re: WCAG"
- Previous message in Thread: Jared Smith: "Re: WCAG"
- View all messages in this Thread