Hello! Here's an issue that's been bugging me for a while and I'd really love some clarification.
There's been a bit of discussion at my work about where we use an image as a link that we must also provide a text link beneath the image as an alternative. The text alternative is usually mirroring what is included in the graphically designed element. So for sighted people it's a bit odd and sometimes confusing reading both. We never use images for main navigation, but occasionally like to add a graphically styled element for something we're promoting on our home page. I believe the justification is broadly for accessibility reasons, though specifically in which situation is this helping? My understanding is that: - screen readers have no problems reading alt attributes (title attributes in an <a> are a different story though - I've heard mixed reviews - if someone could clarify?) - a text only browser will usually read both title and alt attributes (please correct me if I'm wrong on this!) - a screen magnifier will enlarge the image as well as the text - in the case of a user enlarging the text through their browser settings, the image won't be enlarged and the text alternative will - the only real scenario that I can see where this technique may possibly be of use. So is this really best practice? Cheers, Cara. ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************
