From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from neptune.res.wpi.net(neptune.res.WPI.NET[130.215.226.30]) (1584 bytes) by braille.uwo.ca via smail with P:esmtp/D:aliases/T:pipe (sender: ) id for ; Tue, 11 Apr 2000 12:55:03 -0400 (EDT) (Smail-3.2.0.102 1998-Aug-2 #2 built 1999-Sep-5) Received: from localhost (mgorse@localhost) by neptune.res.wpi.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA29798 for ; Tue, 11 Apr 2000 13:01:40 -0400 X-Authentication-Warning: neptune.res.wpi.net: mgorse owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 13:01:40 -0400 (EDT) From: Mike Gorse X-Sender: mgorse@neptune.res.wpi.net To: speakup@braille.uwo.ca Subject: Re: GUIs (was Re: A comment on Slashdot) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII List-Id: On Tue, 11 Apr 2000 cpt.kirk@1tree.net wrote: > As for sending a picture of text, that is done too much for many reasons. > Not only does it cause problems for screen readers, it is also a bandwidth > waste. I also think that those writting books, and programs to creat HTML > should make alt text more prevelant then they do. It is so simple to add > that there is no excuse for it not to be employed. Then again, that is one > more symptom of the laziness that drives many to include a picture of text > in the first place. They are too lazy to work on their design. > I agree for the most part, although I don't like seeing text descriptions for spacer gifs (alt="" would probably be better for them). But then are spacer gifs really necessary? I don't really know one way or the other.