RE: talking about text alternatives Re: ALT as required attribute
"Jon Hanna" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.org.w3c.accessibility.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
> I certainly think that talking about "the alt attribute" instead of > talking about text alternatives in case the imagery isn't clear has > been a mistake. Not least because the alt attribute is limited to the > img element, and isn't what is generally considered the best way to > provide for alternative text - SVG uses child elements instead which > can bring a few advantages and is more like what the XML accessibility > guidelines suggest. As does HTMLs <object>: <object data="movieURI" type="movie/avi"> <object data="imageURI" type="image/png"> <em>rich</em> alternative content </object> </object> It lacks longdesc though.