WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: decorative graphics

for

From: Leslie K. Yoder
Date: Jul 20, 2002 3:27PM

Thanks, John.

That's always been my impression (that alt="" is perfectly okay for images
without significant content), which is why the Dreamweaver accessibility
tool stumped me. I thought maybe there was some new Sect. 508 rule I didn't
know about.

Thanks again,
Leslie

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Foliot - bytown internet" < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
To: < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2002 1:07 PM
Subject: RE: decorative graphics


> PLEASE DON'T!!
>
> alt="" is perfectly legit. there are going to be times when your
judgement
> MUST over-rule what a program "tells" you. If the images are truely
> spacers, etc., then leave the alt text as: alt=""
>
> Verify your document against a validator, you will see that a SGML parser
is
> very happy with this, and screen readers such as IBM HPR and JAWS will
skip
> over these items.
>
> JF
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Leslie K. Yoder [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ]
> > Sent: July 20, 2002 3:21 PM
> > To: WebAIM
> > Subject: decorative graphics
> >
> >
> > Hi. I'm new here and have a question for you: I recently started
working
> > with the Section 508 Accessibility extension to Dreamweaver
> > (4.01), and I'm
> > getting "fails" on decorative images with null alt text (alt="").
> > As far as
> > I can tell, the tool only recognizes null alt text as legit for
> > spacer (size
> > 1) gifs. Is this the case, or am I missing something obvious?
> >
> > Do I have to rename these images to include the word "spacer"?
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Leslie
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----
> > To subscribe, unsubscribe, or view list archives,
> > visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
> >
>
>
> ----
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or view list archives,
> visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
>


----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/