David Dixon wrote:
<img src="/images/accessibility.jpg" width="100" height="89" alt="The
imagery of a person on a wheelchair is generally considered a symbol
for accessibility" title="An image of a wheelchair: the symbol for
accessibility">
How is that alt text *relevant* to the content at all?
Relevant to the content? From your own list of resources the alt
attribute "should be a textual alternative for the meaning of the
image". It has no more relevance to the content than the image itself,
If the image is not relevant to the content, then it wouldn't be there.
One particular image may have many different meanings, but it depends
on the context in which it's used.
For example, in one context, the wheelchair icon may simply represent
the concept of accessibility and provide no other information (as it
does in this case). In another, it may mean "This building has
wheelchair access". In yet another context, like an online store, it
may mean "Wheechair Products". And, indeed, if the context was
explaining the meaning and purpose of the icons used on the site, then
something like your suggested alternative may even be appropriate.
Depending on the context, all of those may be valid alternatives for the
same image, but you need to pick the most appropriate alternative that
is *relevant* to the context in which it is used.
and as the image's purpose is to show the user that the wheelchair is a
symbol for accessibility (with further advisory explanation from the
title element), then I believe the above example is perfectly valid.
The purpose of the image in this context is not to illustrate what the
symbol for accessibility is, it's there to represent the concept of
accessibility.
--
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/
******************************************************
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
******************************************************
