W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2007

Re: Image Equivalent Content Wiki page

From: Philip TAYLOR <Philip-and-LeKhanh@Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org>
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 10:56:41 +0100
Message-ID: <46CFFCD9.2010404@Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org>
To: Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>
CC: public-html List <public-html@w3.org>

Robert Burns wrote:
> Re: <http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/LongdescRetention?action=show>

 > [...] The page is still about the need for facilities for lengthy
 > and rich text equivalents, but it makes no assumptions about the
 > current solutions of the alt and longdesc attributes.
> There is a separate wiki page that deals with a separate need for 
> shortened or summary equivalent text[1]. 

I /wonder/ if we are in danger of following a cowpath here,
when there is a far better road than no cow has yet bothered
to explore [1].  The underlying implication of Rob's message
is that if someone cannot see an image, a rich textual descrition
is the next best thing.  My questions i, is this always the
case ?  Is it not /possible/ that (say) an aural description
might not be better in some circumsdtances ?  Should "alternatives"
not include all possible media, rather than just rich text ?

Philip Taylor
[1] Cows are notoriously stupid creatures; following them
blindly seems the height of lunacy to me.
Received on Saturday, 25 August 2007 09:56:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:25 UTC