It's my understanding that if you want the page to validate and pass some basic 508 stuff, ALT tags must be present for any images that are included in the page markup.
I have seen before (perhaps ALA?) that if the image is decorative a simple "null" would surfice as an ALT tag.
I think this, like most things, involves a bit of preference and I don't believe there is a definitive answer. Using a CSS image replacement technique (and there are a few available) is always a valid option but comes with it's own series of issues (what happens when images are disabled? etc...)
So what to do? I (notice the preference) tend to use CSS background images where I can unless the img serves a real purpose, then it's included in the markup and ALT tagged appropriately.
Hope that helped,
Brian
Luc wrote:
Good evening list,
My understanding is that an image _always_ needs a description for accessibility purposes, even if the image is there for decorative purposes and adds no important information to the page.
Now, somebody told me that, if the image is there purely for decorative purposes and adds no important information to the page, it doesn't need a description and putting it in CSS as background image makes sense. However, if the image needs a description, it should be in the html because it is content. If you do put it in the css and give a title to the div, it is wrong use of css.
Is this correct and am i wrong?
In the (odd) case i'm right, is there some spec that states that an image always needs a description?
*****************************************************
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
*****************************************************
