E-mail List Archives
Thread: Re: html version
Number of posts in this thread: 1 (In chronological order)
From: Tim Beadle
Date: Thu, Feb 16 2006 9:45AM
Subject: Re: html version
No previous message | No next message
On 16/02/06, Paul Collins < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Thanks for the comments about the Flash Image library last week. We've
> managed to start building an Accessible Flash version and a html version,
> both pulling the content from the same XML file. All images come with their
> own description so this will meet the Alt tag requirements.
Someone else is bound to mention it if I don't: there's no such thing
as an 'alt tag' :) There's an alt *attribute* of the img tag; no more,
no less.
> My question is, how do we name the links between the two versions? Should we
> call it "HTML version" and "Flash version"? Do most people know the
> difference these days? We can't really call it a "text version" as it
> contains images and we shouldn't really call it an "Accessible version" as
> the Flash will also be deemed accessible to those who can use it.
How about "Regular version (HTML) / Enhanced version (Flash)" ?
Regards,
Tim