WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

RE: Blank alt attributes for images - best practise?

for

From: ruth_k_marshall
Date: Oct 6, 2003 8:20AM


Hi,

I refer to the Royal National Institute of the Blinds Web access centre
website at http://www.rnib.org.uk/webaccesscentre and in particular the
page at
http://www.rnib.org.uk/xpedio/groups/public/documents/publicwebsite/public_alttext.hcsp#TopOfPage.
This page provides information on what to avoid and what to do in terms
of ALT text.

The Accessible Website Consultancy Team at the Royal National Institute of
the Blind (RNIB) used to recommend that "*" was used as the ALT text for
images which did not convey any information. The reason for this was
because screen readers could not pick up on "" or " " and read out of the
file name of the images.

Screen readers have now progressed in their development and are now able to
pick up on "" or " " and do ignore the image file names. Therefore, there
being no need to code images which don't convey any information with "*".
In some websites you can find many images which do not convey any
information, to code them with "*" can be very cumbersome to listen to e.g.
graphic star, graphic star etc.

RNIB's recommendation has now come in line with the WAI's which is "" or "
".

Hope this information is of some help.

Regards, Ruth



Ruth Marshall

The Standard Life Assurance Company
Dundas House
Group E-commerce Development
1st Floor
20 Brandon Street
Edinburgh
EH3 5PP

Tel: 0131 246 6376 ext 66376
Email: <EMAIL REMOVED>
Web: www.standardlife.com




webaim-forum-requ
<EMAIL REMOVED> .o To: <EMAIL REMOVED>
rg cc: (bcc: Ruth K Marshall/STANDARD LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY)
bcc: Ruth K Marshall/STANDARD LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY
06/10/2003 14:43 Subject: RE: Blank alt attributes for images - best practise?
Please respond to
webaim-forum






Just a suggestion but there are examples where images have used alt="*" for
similar situations.

This at least provides some content in the alt tag and doesn't seem as if
anything's missing that should be there.

It implies that the tag was meant to be left empty as opposed to being left
empty accidentally.


would like to hear everyone else's views on this...

-Jake.


**********************************************************************
This email and any files sent with it are intended only for the named
recipient. If you are not the named recipient please telephone/email
the sender immediately. You should not disclose the content or
take/retain/distribute any copies.
**********************************************************************



Norwich Union Life & Pensions Limited
Registered Office: 2 Rougier Street, York, YO90 1UU
Registered in England Number 3253947
A member of the Norwich Union Marketing Group
Members of which are Authorised and Regulated by the Financial Services
Authority.

For further enquiries 01603 622200


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






For more information on Standard Life, visit our website
http://www.standardlife.com/

The Standard Life Assurance Company, Standard Life House, 30 Lothian Road,
Edinburgh EH1 2DH, is registered in Scotland (No. SZ4) and regulated by the
Financial Services Authority. Tel: 0131 225 2552 - calls may be recorded or
monitored. This confidential e-mail is for the addressee only. If received
in error, do not retain/copy/disclose it without our consent and please
return it to us. We virus scan and monitor all e-mails but are not
responsible for any damage caused by a virus or alteration by a third party
after it is sent.




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