homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.196.18.51
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

Home / Forums Index / WebmasterWorld / Webmaster General
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: phranque & physics

Webmaster General Forum

This 212 message thread spans 8 pages: < < 212 ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 > >     
Blind Student Sues Site Owner Claiming Civil-Rights Violations Over Alt Text
Suit charges retailer's Web site cannot be used by the sightless
walkman




msg:349289
 12:44 pm on Feb 9, 2006 (gmt 0)

"...Target's site lacks "alt-text," an invisible code embedded beneath a graphic on the Web site that a screen reader could use to provide a description of the image to a blind person, the suit said."

"...A blind person cannot make a purchase independently on target.com."

[sfgate.com...]

what if one puts the wrong alt text, and a blind person buys the wrong thing relying on it? Not trying to be funny, but it can happen.

 

pageoneresults




msg:349469
 8:07 pm on Feb 13, 2006 (gmt 0)

I was quite shocked that on a more strict accessability level of the WCAG guidelines the first of my form pages completely failed due to eg lack of tabindices and some other features. So it is not just this image alt tag thing. There is a lot more to it.

Failed? Or were they warnings? The tabindex attribute is not required if your page has a logical tabindex. Easiest way to test this is browse to your page, now take your hand off your mouse. Using your keyboard only, can you tab your way logically through your page? I mean, that first time you press the tab key, where does the focus start? Is it at a link in your menu? Is it at the first field in a search form? Where do you put the keyboard user when they use their tab key?

The above example not only applies to those who are Blind, but it also applies to many with other disabilities. Some may not be able to use a mouse. I truly respect those who are in that position. I'm a strong proponent of using keyboard shortcuts whenever possible. I worked with someone for five years on the Mac who rarely touched their mouse, it was an amazing experience. And one that I helped translate over to building websites. It's there in the specifications, everything you need to know about developing a site that is keyboard friendly.

Also keep in mind, that if you've built an accessible website and you've followed the guidelines to the best of your interpretation, you've just addressed all the basic elements of SEO and then some. Due to the inherent nature of accessibility, you are forced to use certain elements that search engine algos may take into consideration when determining the quality of a page and/or pages. ;)

Let me reiterate that...

You are forced to use certain elements that search engine algos may take into consideration when determining the quality of a page and/or pages.

It's a win/win solution. There are no losers, there are no real costs involved other than a little bit of time to read the guidelines, implement them and enjoy the rewards of having an accessible site. Just imagine all those links you'd get from .edu sites! Think of it that way if that is the only motivator!

Oliver Henniges




msg:349470
 8:39 pm on Feb 13, 2006 (gmt 0)

> Failed? Or were they warnings?

Maybe warnings, don't know. It's just that I found this isn't as easy as I thought in the first place. Besides I found another voice which said that 81 characters is the recommended maximum for the alt-attribute, anything longer should be put into the long-desc-attribute.

My problem is: whenever I get this Sysiphos-impression I tend to "switch to something completely different."

Could you set up a priority-list?

balam




msg:349471
 8:44 pm on Feb 13, 2006 (gmt 0)

> Could you set up a priority-list?

You mean, like these?

W3.ORG:

Checklist of Checkpoints for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 [w3.org]

List of Checkpoints for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 [w3.org]

> I think before continuing splitting hairs we all should probably get some basic knowledge in the first place.

I can't help but think that some folk here are learning about some aspects of HTML for the very first time. A better & more comprehensive knowledge of the tools we use, as designers, is clearly needed.

[edited by: balam at 8:52 pm (utc) on Feb. 13, 2006]

andrea99




msg:349472
 8:47 pm on Feb 13, 2006 (gmt 0)

...there are no real costs involved other than a little bit of time to read the guidelines, implement them and enjoy the rewards of having an accessible site.

This does not sound like someone who has a payroll to meet, who pays someone to read the guidelines and implement them. They could do it during their lunch hour, right? Unfortunately even highly experienced web designers expect to be paid while reading the guidelines.

I just wonder what Target will spend to retrofit their site. I suspect their web designers are rubbing their hands together over this...

You'll be paying more to shop at Target--and everywhere else that must follow suit. Their sales will drop, their stock will drop, the country will be plunged into recession, thousands will lose their jobs, poverty will sweep the land. Well, maybe not.

pageoneresults




msg:349473
 9:14 pm on Feb 13, 2006 (gmt 0)

andrea99, this is becoming quite interesting! :)

This does not sound like someone who has a payroll to meet, who pays someone to read the guidelines and implement them.

Who pays? A responsible employer will make it part of the job responsibilities for those team members who are responsible for that particular part of the website. Did I emphasize "responsible" enough? ;)

They could do it during their lunch hour, right?

Ummm, if their job depended on it, they'd print the specs out and keep a copy where they are most easily accessible (pun intended). The online validators for accessibility are not perfect, they do not function like the W3 HTML/XHTML/CSS validators. They (the accessibility validators) cannot determine whether or not certain elements on your page meet the guidelines, you have to manually check and verify that you've addressed that particular guideline being flagged for manual review.

Unfortunately even highly experienced web designers expect to be paid while reading the guidelines.

It's in their job responsibilities, see above. ;)

I just wonder what Target will spend to retrofit their site. I suspect their web designers are rubbing their hands together over this...

I spent hours going through one product page pixel by pixel. They won't spend much. They could easily bring in a consultant to meet with their development teams and discuss these one by one. It is not brain surgery, although some might paint it to look like that. ;) Target most likely does have some technology issues to address. Remember, none of us have actually tried to place an order as a Blind user (heck, you probably haven't even looked at the page with images turned off), so we don't know what lies beyond just this one issue. Sure, correct the alt attribute problems, now you can ADD TO CART, what about the next steps, are they accessible? It more than likely goes a little deeper than what we are discussing here.

You'll be paying more to shop at Target--and everywhere else that must follow suit. Their sales will drop, their stock will drop, the country will be plunged into recession, thousands will lose their jobs, poverty will sweep the land. Well, maybe not.

lol! Oh stop, you're exaggerating. :)

I just wonder what Target will spend to retrofit their site. I suspect their web designers are rubbing their hands together over this...

I would suspect some of their web designers are searching the online classifieds right now looking for a new job. Someone has to take the fall for this. Guess what rolls downhill?

[edited by: pageoneresults at 9:27 pm (utc) on Feb. 13, 2006]

pageoneresults




msg:349474
 9:23 pm on Feb 13, 2006 (gmt 0)

This sums up the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines - WCAG

Table of Contents

  • 1. Introduction
  • 2. Themes of Accessible Design
  • 3. How the Guidelines are Organized
  • 4. Priorities
  • 5. Conformance
  • 6. Web Content Accessibility Guidelines

Six items. All listed conveniently on one page in a semantically correct bulleted list for easy viewing. Named anchors galore so you can easily reference what it is that they are referring to in the guidelines. It doesn't get much easier than that other than having someone hand hold through the process which actually is not a bad idea. This may require a little finesse. :)

Reference

Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 - W3C Recommendation 5-May-1999 [w3.org]

Note the date, 1999 May. I think seven (07) years is enough time for the web design community to figure things out, don't you?

andrea99




msg:349475
 10:03 pm on Feb 13, 2006 (gmt 0)

You'll be paying more to shop at Target--and everywhere else that must follow suit. Their sales will drop, their stock will drop, the country will be plunged into recession, thousands will lose their jobs, poverty will sweep the land. Well, maybe not.

lol! Oh stop, you're exaggerating. :)

Yes, that is an exaggeration and I admitted it right there. But that is the direction you're taking us and it is the reason for what resistance you'll meet along the way. This will not sink American business because business is very good at overcoming these obstructions and the economy is strong. Where the greater damage will occur is ecommerce where the prices will rise and fewer will enter the game.

As someone who spends a lot of time at my computer and is very comfortable with ordering things online, I still prefer to make the 10 mile drive to the mall for most items.

Ecommerce is the child that will be stunted here. Though admittedly it may benefit from these things in the long run, hard to tell on that.

stapel




msg:349476
 2:11 am on Feb 14, 2006 (gmt 0)

pageoneresults said:
Were you aware of the Long Description?

Yes; "longdesc" is the separate page (one for each image) wherein we have to "fully describe" the content, intent, motion, relation, and sensation of the graphic.


pageoneresults said:
...there are no real costs involved other than a little bit of time....

Maybe your time is free, but not everybody's is.


pageoneresults said:
...the small/medium sized business[es]...don't have the budget to implement the type of technology that would make their sites inaccessible.

You make it sound like these extra services and pages and translations and software packages come standard, and the little guys are going to all sorts of trouble and expense to strip them out. That's exactly backwards.


W3C said:
Content is "equivalent" to other content when both fulfill essentially the same function or purpose....[T]he equivalent must fulfill essentially the same function for the person with a disability...as the primary content does for the person without any disability.

So what is the "equivalent content" descriptor for the "Mona Lisa"? And if you feek that ALT-tags are sufficient, then please describe the "Mona Lisa", providing an experience "equivalent" to viewing the painting, without going over the character limit.


pageoneresults said:
If you can read it on the screen, in the major browsers available, and it works if you have images turned off, you are more than likely 90%+ WAI-A accessible.

"If you have an art site or a technical site, or if any disabled users visit using non-majority browsers, you have an excellent chance of being viewed as being discriminatory." At least, that's how I'm reading what you're saying.

Eliz.

buckworks




msg:349477
 3:48 am on Feb 14, 2006 (gmt 0)

"Essentially the same function or purpose" is a very different standard from an "equivalent experience." Don't mix apples and oranges.

If you have a picture of the Mona Lisa on your site, you say in the ALT attribute that it's a picture of the Mona Lisa by Leonardo da Vinci. A blind user won't have the same "experience" but at least they'll know what the image is.

What's so hard about that?

stapel




msg:349478
 2:45 pm on Feb 14, 2006 (gmt 0)

buckworks said:
"Essentially the same function or purpose" is a very different standard from an "equivalent experience."

Suppose the purpose of the graphic (the "Mona Lisa", to continue the example, on, say, an art-studies web site) is to elicit discussion of the techniques used by the artist, the damage evident due to age, the emotions evoked, and the interpretations that can made. How does "<ALT="Mona Lisa">" provide "essentially the same function" as the picture?

Suppose the purpose of the graphic is that "the technical rules listed in the textbook were just confusing, so watch this animation to learn how to process the algorithm." How does "<ALT="animation">" have "essentially the same purpose"?

Some seem to be thinking that "Click here!" buttons are the only graphics on the web, or that no graphic is ever crucial, integral, or central to the purpose of a page. I'm sorry, but I just don't think that's true.

Eliz.

pageoneresults




msg:349479
 2:50 pm on Feb 14, 2006 (gmt 0)

Suppose the purpose of the graphic (the "Mona Lisa", to continue the example, on, say, an art-studies web site) is to elicit discussion of the techniques used by the artist, the damage evident due to age, the emotions evoked, and the interpretations that can made. How does "<ALT="Mona Lisa">" provide "essentially the same function" as the picture?

We may be straying a little off topic here.

You're reading stuff into this that isn't there. We're mainly talking about those with visual disabilities and the alt attribute. If there is an image of the Mona Lisa, then the alt attribute might read alt="Picture of the Mona Lisa". That's all, plain and simple. You have 80 characters or less to best describe the "basic" content of the image.

If in your case, you need to expand that alt attribute, then the longdesc is in order.

Typically, if there is going to be a picture and it is surrounded by text, the surrounding text is most likely being used to talk about and/or describe the image. Or, that may not be the case.

The bottom line is that there are alternatives for describing everything that you can put on or in a web page.

If you have an art site or a technical site, or if any disabled users visit using non-majority browsers, you have an excellent chance of being viewed as being discriminatory." At least, that's how I'm reading what you're saying.

You lost me on that one. :(

How does "<ALT="Mona Lisa">" provide "essentially the same function" as the picture?

Huh? The alt attribute is not designed for what you are discussing. It's a simple attribute which is to be used to describe the image. If you are eliciting discussion about the painting, then the text surrounding the image is responsible for that, not the alt attribute. And, if you absolutely need to take the alt attribute further, use the longdesc.

jessejump




msg:349480
 4:42 pm on Feb 14, 2006 (gmt 0)

Every HTML book I have ever read or looked through, every online tutorial and every newsgroup or forum related to HTML has for 10 years emphasized the importance of the alt attribute. Validators emphasize the importance of alt attribute.
Most Wizzywig editors have on the insert image dialog a place to type in ALT ="Picture of a smiling woman".
How come people don't get it?

Oliver Henniges




msg:349481
 4:59 pm on Feb 14, 2006 (gmt 0)

Just three intermediate unrelated sidesteps:

what bothers me most is this this alt-thing in input tags within forms. I noticed on your (pageoneresults) side that you cared for that; I checked all my pages thru the w3c-validator in the past, and this is the reason why from the very beginning I supplied my images with alt-attributes. But today for the first time I hear that this was recommended for form-fields as well. Besides my shop, which now runs on a php basis I still have some older extra-pages with a java-script-driven form. Very comfortable for my non-blind visitors (by the way: has anyone mentioned yet that visitor comes from latin videre=see?), because they don't have to click around. They can order all they want from this specific product group on just this one page, including calculation of the traffic fees, sums and so on. I wouldn't know how to convert these pages for blind people, because I don't have the faintest idea how their readers cope with java-script. Its just a few pages, but its a matter of principles. So:

1) I think efficiency in usability is one of the key-issues for successful websites. This efficiency per se in some cases cannot be copied for blind people, simply because blindness itself is what prevents one from performing some actions efficiently.

2) What about accessability of pdf-documents? I noticed some of these rank fairly well in googles serps. Is there an accoustic reader for these or will the next suit be run against adobe?

3) One of my images is an explosion-painting of a technical facility, of which I sell the single parts. If I had been able to describe these parts with words in the past, I would have done it; but I wouldn't know how to do it.

balam




msg:349482
 5:04 pm on Feb 14, 2006 (gmt 0)

> How come people don't get it?

Because it is just sooo easy to come up with "exceptions" to the "rules" for the sake of argument.

balam




msg:349483
 5:38 pm on Feb 14, 2006 (gmt 0)

> What about accessability of pdf-documents?

The JAWS screen reader software mentioned earlier in this thread will read PDFs.

It's probably worth nothing that JAWS is a screen reader, far more than just an audible web browser. Actually, there is no browser in the JAWS software - you still use your regular browser (which is, almost invariably, Internet Explorer) to surf.

And yes, the price for JAWS is (outrageously) high, but the advertised pricing is not what is paid by Visually Impaired organizations. (At least, that is the case for the VI organization I work for, when they purchased copies.)

FWIW: At the Evolt Browser Archive [browsers.evolt.org], there is a text-to-speech browser available; look for the "Talking Browser" by WeMedia. It's old software - I don't think the company even exists anymore - so it may not work on XP (it's Windows only). If I remember right, you'll also need to install some text-to-speech components from Microsoft. But hey!, it's free. So, if it runs on your box, turn off your monitor and surf your - or Target's - site for a new, ahem, "view" of the Web.

> Javascript

Javascript (accessibility) issues? There's always the <noscript> element, as we're all aware.

Oliver Henniges




msg:349484
 6:39 pm on Feb 14, 2006 (gmt 0)

Yes I know, but that doesn't work for recalculation of form-elements. On my pages in question you may insert the number of each products you want to order and after any onChange event the browser recalculates the sums. No need to reload the page like under a server-side scripting. No way to implement this in the noscript area; if anything similar had ever been possible under pure html I would have done it five years ago.

I know about this criticism on javascript and that is the reason why I switched over to that php/mysql-Version in the shop itself now. But as I said I left some of these javascript-pages because of the efficiency they provide. I have similar categories in the regular blind-friendly-shop and I might provide a deep-link (even on the page itself, not the noscript area) but that is not the point. Even if I put an H1-link on top of the page saying "click here to get to the blind-friendly-alternative" the page wouldn't pass the accessability test. Even if I added alt-attributes to the form-tags it wouldn't. And to present that shop-deeplink as a shadow-page might trigger a duplicate content filter.

I'd love to present that accessibility icon on my pages, but for some of these pages it is simply nonsense to try to do so.

Oliver Henniges




msg:349485
 6:43 pm on Feb 14, 2006 (gmt 0)

> The JAWS screen reader software mentioned earlier in this thread will read PDFs.

What about the images in pdfs? I recently tried to write the beginnings of a pdf-parser in order to import my suppliers' catalogues into my database. I found nothing comparable to the alt-attribute.

stapel




msg:349486
 7:24 pm on Feb 14, 2006 (gmt 0)

pageoneresults said:
We're mainly talking about those with visual disabilities and the alt attribute.

According to the title and sub-title for this thread, we're talking about getting sued for not being sufficiently accessible.


pageoneresults said:
The alt attribute is not designed for what you are discussing.... use the longdesc.

Exactly: If the graphic in question is more than a gee-gaw, more than "eye candy", then "accessibility" would seem to require that the graphic have its own separate page that attempts to describe that graphic in all aspects. If a page has ten such graphics, then there will need to be ten such "longdesc" page links. Exactly.


jessejump said:
[Every HTML resource] has for 10 years emphasized the importance of the alt attribute....How come people don't get it?

I can't speak for others, but I know that I am not saying not to use ALT-tags. I do use them; I always have.

What I'm suggesting is that this isn't going to stop with ALT-tags. Any graphic, or perhaps any aspect of a web site, that isn't deemed suitably "accessible", may potentially lead to a lawsuit.


Oliver Henniges said:
If I had been able to describe these parts with words in the past, I would have done it; but I wouldn't know how to do it.

This is precisely my problem. If I'd known how to say it in words, or if the words had been sufficient to explain the concept under discussion, then I wouldn't have needed the image. Or maybe the image is the topic under discussion, such as "your graph, when completed, should look like this, if you want to receive full credit for the exercise."

How does one do that without pictures? I don't know, and this may be a failing on my part. But it's not a malicious failure, and I don't see why I should be in jeopardy because of it.

Eliz.

pageoneresults




msg:349487
 7:43 pm on Feb 14, 2006 (gmt 0)

How does one do that without pictures? I don't know, and this may be a failing on my part. But it's not a malicious failure, and I don't see why I should be in jeopardy because of it.

You are not in jeopardy. This has nothing to do with the issues that you are discussing which go way beyond what the Target issues are.

If you have a website that sells pictures, and those pictures require an advanced "alt attribute" then the longdesc is going to be one option.

If you have a website that shows graphs (such as yours) and you need to accommodate for users with disabilities, then I would suggest using approproiate alt attributes or taking advantage of the longdesc. Yes, it adds an element of maintenance. But, it also adds an element of usability for those users who require it. And, you never know, there may be some weight factored in by a search engine algo.

The other option is to just build a page specific to the picture. Really! If you have that much to say about an image, then it deserves it's own space, doesn't it?

Please, let's not exaggerate the topic at hand. The lawsuit specifies the alt attribute specifically. There are many different ways to optimize an image for the impaired. In Target's case it was just a matter of putting alt="ADD TO CART" on the product pages. And a few other things too.

jessejump




msg:349488
 7:55 pm on Feb 14, 2006 (gmt 0)

In general practice, a reductio ad absurdum is a tactic in which the logic of an argument is challenged by reducing the concept to its most absurd extreme. It is thus often similar in nature to the slippery slope argument.

World-wide recession.
The end of capitalism
No more lunch hours if alt text is mandated............

andrea99




msg:349489
 8:10 pm on Feb 14, 2006 (gmt 0)

I think the fear here is that because the ADA has been abused in order to extort money from brick and mortar businesses this abuse is now migrating online.

Since a brick and mortar business must actually have been visited by the disabled person in order for there to have been a "negative emotional experience" it is more difficult to file a bogus suit than against a web site which can be visited from a remote location.

This means that the same folks that bring you spam will move on to the more lucrative lawsuit abuse.

I'm going to link to one representative story but if it gets edited out or if you'd like to see much more simply Google
"Americans with Disabilities Act" lawsuit abuse

[news10.net...]

StupidScript




msg:349490
 8:29 pm on Feb 14, 2006 (gmt 0)

Please keep in mind that this lawsuit seeks to tie the brick-and-mortar shop with the online presence. What applies to the brick-and-mortar shop might then be applicable to the companion online shop.

Those of you *without* a brick-and-mortar shop will need to wait for the next lawsuit to see if your online-only shop is to be held to the same standard. Could be interesting ...

stapel




msg:349491
 8:29 pm on Feb 14, 2006 (gmt 0)

andrea99 said:
I think the fear here is that...this abuse is now migrating online.

Quite so!

Eliz.

pageoneresults




msg:349492
 8:35 pm on Feb 14, 2006 (gmt 0)

Just a quick response in regards to the linked reference above. It is kind of ironic that we are talking about Accessibility and the site being referenced above uses a dark red background with black type. How accessible is that (for the sighted)? Go figure...

pageoneresults




msg:349493
 8:49 pm on Feb 14, 2006 (gmt 0)

You know, it is amazing to see how topics progress from start to finish. This one has taken paths all over the accessibility spectrum and hopefully this quote from the story that was originally posted will bring the topic back on track...

But Target's site lacks "alt-text," an invisible code embedded beneath a graphic on the Web site that a screen reader could use to provide a description of the image to a blind person, the suit said.

Issue number one above.

Issue number two below.

Target.com also has inaccessible image maps, the suit said. Image maps, when clicked on by sighted users, allow the patron to jump to other destinations within the Web site. But since Target's site requires the use of a mouse to complete the transaction, it prevents blind people from making purchases online, the suit said.

Issue number two probably being one of the more difficult ones for Target to address.

And then this...

Basrawi said the plaintiffs began negotiating with Target after writing the retailer in May 2005. But talks broke down last month, and the company, whom the attorney described as "one of the biggest offenders," declined to modify its Web site.

2005 May? That's 8 months ago that they were first made aware of the issues that were brewing. Why not just address the problems, make the changes and continue to be a big name brand for everyone, not just the sighted.

P.S. If these were major issues that required some deep dark secretive force of html coders to come in and secretly work their magic, I could understand. But, these are simple issues (at face value) that most of us do by nature because we know it should be done. Adding the words ADD TO CART in an alt attribute assigned to an image that reads ADD TO CART is only natural, isn't it? ;)

andrea99




msg:349494
 9:37 pm on Feb 14, 2006 (gmt 0)

...a dark red background with black type. How accessible is that (for the sighted)? Go figure...

This occurred to me when I included the link and I wondered if anyone would comment.

Compounding the outrage:
1) Local media company--information outlet.
2) Major market, Sacramento CA, 90 miles from Silicon Valley.
3) ABC/Disney affiliate, big-time media company!
4) Irony in accessibilty connection...

Go figure indeed.

pageoneresults




msg:349495
 11:51 am on Feb 15, 2006 (gmt 0)

This occurred to me when I included the link and I wondered if anyone would comment.

lol! They must be following the topic as the content area no longer has a dark red background, it is now white. I wonder who made that decision?

If you are still following, check this out...

Validation Report [htmlhelp.com]

Fatal errors and the site fails some of the same areas that the Target site does. The neglect in this area is rampant and many companies are going to be looking for Accessibility Consultants this year to retrofit their sites for the future.

andrea99




msg:349496
 12:58 pm on Feb 15, 2006 (gmt 0)

Accessibility Consultants

Yes, the "Accessibility Industry" is a growth sector and as a libertarian I find it to be a creepy and unfairly administered mandatory tax. I suppose that's the pivot point of our differences...

bedlam




msg:349497
 10:34 pm on Feb 15, 2006 (gmt 0)

3) One of my images is an explosion-painting of a technical facility, of which I sell the single parts. If I had been able to describe these parts with words in the past, I would have done it; but I wouldn't know how to do it.

Simple. You need to use an image map [w3.org]--and I feel I should point out that the linked-to document is just a couple of months shy of seven years old.

Let's just do a code example:

<div>
<img src="path/to/image.gif" width="100" height="100" alt="Exploded view of product assembly" usemap="#explodedViewMap" />
<map name="explodedViewMap" id="explodedViewMap">
<!--
Text equivalents:
This stuff should a) be visible, and b) is screenreader-available
-->
<h2>Parts in the assmebly</h2>
<ul>
<li><a href="northwestPart.html" shape="rect" coords="0,0,50,50">Northwest Part</a></li>
<li><a href="northeastPart.html" shape="rect" coords="50,0,100,50">Northeast Part</a></li>
<li><a href="southwestPart.html" shape="rect" coords="0,50,50,100">Southwest Part</a></li>
<li><a href="southeastPart.html" shape="rect" coords="50,50,100,100">Southeast Part</a></li>
</ul>
<!-- Text equivalents end -->
<!-- Visual stuff -->
<area href="northwestPart.html" shape="rect" coords="0,0,50,50" alt="Northwest Part" />
<area href="northeastPart.html" shape="rect" coords="50,0,100,50" alt="Northeast Part" />
<area href="southwestPart.html" shape="rect" coords="0,50,50,100" alt="Southwest Part" />
<area href="southeastPart.html" shape="rect" coords="50,50,100,100" alt="Southeast Part" />
<!-- Visual stuff: end -->
</map>
</div>

This code shows a really simplified image map (a square picture with four square parts...) The image itself is clickable for sighted users with images available in their browsers, but there are full text equivalents available for other users.

And, for those who still seem to have a hard time figuring it out, here's some further reading on the alt attribute [w3.org].

-b

senixon




msg:349498
 12:24 am on Feb 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

CRAZZZZY!

I know it's good practice to put ALT tags, but didn't know it was the law. If it is the law where is it written?

It's one thing to complain about it -- another to sue for it.

The world is becoming a sad place if we can get sued for not following a W3C coding standards.

What if that blind person used an outdated browser? Would they sue for not having the site compatible with their setup?

This case won't go very far if the judge has his head on straight.

minnapple




msg:349499
 2:06 am on Feb 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

I have mentioned the proper use of alt tags and how it relates to this situation many times.

I has fell on deaf ears.

Bad pun but I had to make it.

Keyword spamming images doesn't really add that much value to rankings and it is kind of telling a blind person that the sign says walk, rather than don't walk.

Is Target at fault? That is up to the justice system.
Does Target have people making bad decisions? Yep.
Any company does.

Being an insider to Target's operations from a supplier end, I have stronger opinions, but I am not going there.

This 212 message thread spans 8 pages: < < 212 ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / WebmasterWorld / Webmaster General
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved