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

Re: Image Equivalent Content Wiki page

From: Sander Tekelenburg <st@isoc.nl>
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 17:09:33 +0200
Message-Id: <p06240635c2f5f3883d65@[]>
To: <public-html@w3.org>

At 10:56 +0100 UTC, on 2007-08-25, Philip TAYLOR wrote:


> 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 ?

It is not. It satisfies an universality requirement, not an accessibility
requirement. (See <http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/AccessibilityConsensus>.)

>  Is it not /possible/ that (say) an aural description
> might not be better in some circumsdtances ?

Absolutely, yes.

> Should "alternatives"
> not include all possible media, rather than just rich text ?

Yes, this problem is stated at <http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/ABetterAlt>, as
the (currently) 4th and 6th problem description. From all the  potential
solutions that have so far been discussed, the there proposed <alt> element
seems to be the best by far still.  Not only because it could satisfy both
universality and accessibility requirements, but also because it would be a
single mechnanism for both. I think it goes without saying that that (in
itself) is preferable to a single universality solution and one or more
additional accessibility solutions.

Sander Tekelenburg
The Web Repair Initiative: <http://webrepair.org/>
Received on Saturday, 25 August 2007 15:10:04 UTC

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