From quanta Fri Mar 11 13:38:48 2005 From: Richard Weait Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 13:38:48 +0000 To: quanta Subject: [Quanta] Just use alt=""; don't forget it Message-Id: <1110548328.13828.26.camel () holden ! weait ! net> X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=quanta&m=111099284301782 Andras Mantia said: > Putting only alt="" doesn't make sense. Yes, your documents will > validate, but if there is no real description there, it is not > different from not having the attribute specified at all. I respectfully disagree that there is no difference. Please see http://diveintoaccessibility.org/day_21_ignoring_spacer_images.html for an example of how missing alt="" breaks a page for Lynx and JAWS users. In short, Lynx shows the file names, and JAWS reads them aloud. The rest of the http://diveintoaccessibility.org/ site provides fictional stories of web site usability and the users that are aided by well designed sites. > I don't want to treat differently from fooattr="">. I can understand that. I do not know how to reconcile this with the following. Lars Behrens said: > And even if Quanta doesn't want to add it it would be nice if it > stayed in the tag after I put it in (alt="" is always removed when you > edit the tag via the dialog). I second this. I can agree that it is my obligation to make sure that the alt tag is correct when I first place the img tag. I must make my alt tags meaningful for content, like alt="sunset at Laguna Beach" in our image gallery. But alt="" is clearly correct and valid for non-content (eye-candy) spacer images, while a missing alt tag is both invalid and inconvenient to some users. That Quanta will change valid markup to invalid markup seems unusual. That this change only hurts web site visitors who already have too many inconveniences each day is just unfortunate. Cheers, Richard _______________________________________________ Quanta mailing list Quanta@mail.kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/quanta