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

Re: Proposal: accessibility revision for the img element...

From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 13:29:21 +0300
Message-Id: <1A39F640-6C8C-485F-AF74-8F93936E30A1@iki.fi>
Cc: Sander Tekelenburg <st@isoc.nl>, public-html@w3.org
To: joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie

On Jul 6, 2007, at 13:14, Joshue O Connor wrote:

> 'Fallback' has a rather pointed connotation that it is somehow  
> secondary or not that important and for non-visual users it is  
> obviously 'primary' content.

Political correctness aside, realistically, it *is* secondary as far  
as the *author* is concerned. Or more to the point, the still image,  
canvas or video is *primary* from the realistic *author* point of  
view. If this wasn't the case, the author would provide the text in  
the main body of the content--not as something that is only presented  
when something else isn't.

> The term 'fallback' also gives the impression to the author that they
> really don't have to bother with this as it's only 'fallback' content

That's a fair point.

> I would suggest 'equivalent' (maybe we need an <equal> element?).

That will lead to endless discussions about whether content in  
different media can ever be truly "equivalent".

Henri Sivonen
Received on Friday, 6 July 2007 10:29:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:23 UTC