E-mail List Archives
Re: Alt text (was VIKI - text transcodeing)
From: John Foliot - Stanford Online Accessibility Program
Date: Jan 22, 2007 1:00PM
- Next message: Keith Parks: "Re: Alt text (was VIKI - text transcodeing)"
- Previous message: John Foliot - Stanford Online Accessibility Program: "Re: Alt text (was VIKI - text transcodeing)"
- Next message in Thread: Keith Parks: "Re: Alt text (was VIKI - text transcodeing)"
- Previous message in Thread: John Foliot - Stanford Online Accessibility Program: "Re: Alt text (was VIKI - text transcodeing)"
- View all messages in this Thread
Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
>
> Which brings me back to my original assertion: if that is already
> written out in the copy, I see it as duplication. For a sighted user,
> it conveys the same meaning in two different ways; for a screen reader
> user, it conveys it in a single way.
But it need not, and that's the point. Functional equivalency here allows
us to re-enforce the concept in a separate way for the screen reader user
just as the image does for the sighted user.
> Nonetheless, I argue that the
> meaning of the page is not lost with an empty alt on the fluff image.
Not lost, but not the same either...
>
>> The fact that you are illustrating
>> "...we've got photographic evidence" is in itself an important
>> statement don't you think?
>
> Nope.
>
> But we'll have to agree to disagree on this matter then.
And we can do that Patrick <smile>.
Cheers!
JF
- Next message: Keith Parks: "Re: Alt text (was VIKI - text transcodeing)"
- Previous message: John Foliot - Stanford Online Accessibility Program: "Re: Alt text (was VIKI - text transcodeing)"
- Next message in Thread: Keith Parks: "Re: Alt text (was VIKI - text transcodeing)"
- Previous message in Thread: John Foliot - Stanford Online Accessibility Program: "Re: Alt text (was VIKI - text transcodeing)"
- View all messages in this Thread