u:
> xin:
>>>> I'm a bit confused by this request. Either the pictures convey some
>>>> useful information, and then they need an alt text, or they don't, and
>>>> then perhaps they should not be present at all, no? (But I guess I'm
>>>> grossly over-simplifying :) I'll leave it to sajolida to handle this.
>>
>> Sometimes, images are only usefull to know what a thing looks like
>> (logo, some screenshots) and have no additional information who can be
>> add in a alt.
>>
>>> alt-tags are important for blind people, even when they just describe
>>> what the image says.
>>>
>>> I could not review the branch from the website because the repo is
>>> private or something, but I think accessibility in HTML always requires
>>> alt tags, even if they are simply 'logo'.
>>
>> I know the importance of alt, on lot of websites alt are misused and are
>> just noise to blind people. Sometimes, the alt value have to be empty.
>>
>> For exemple, in download page, I remove "Wait" alt because after you
>> have the text "Please wait".
>> Alt can be empty if the information was already in the text around.
>>
>> About web version of my repo, it's a known issue, you have to use git.
>
> From a web accessibility point of view, it's good to either have
> alt="Something descriptive" or an empty alt="" - as said by xin.
>
> See
> https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/Img#Attributes.
> Quoting from there:
>
> "Setting this attribute to an empty string (alt="") indicates that this
> image is not a key part of the content, and that non-visual browsers may
> omit it from rendering."
Right, xin and u are right on this one. The alt attribute is mandatory
but can be empty. I also learned a lot from this article (now in
/contribute/how/website):
http://webaim.org/techniques/alttext/
> I did not look at the branch but it should not completely remove the
> alt, just its contents when necessary.
I took a very quick look at the branch and the review didn't seem
straightforward (sorry!) but I'll handle it soon.
