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

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

From: Peter Krantz <peter.krantz@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 12:33:50 +0200
Message-ID: <7b9ad66d0707060333h66d1b5cetb80908b66665dc3a@mail.gmail.com>
To: joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie
Cc: "Sander Tekelenburg" <st@isoc.nl>, public-html@w3.org

On 7/6/07, Joshue O Connor <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie> wrote:
> I agree, and also think that the term 'fallback' content is
> inappropriate for other reasons. IMO it is not a suitable term at all.

> [snip]
> I would suggest 'equivalent'

+1 for this suggestion. This makes it clearer for the reader that we
are talking about content that may actually be used when the image is
displayed (and not only as a fallback when the image can't be
displayed). To avoid endless discussions of the content aqctally being
equivalent, a note could be added to the spec clarifying that the
contetnt should "strive to be equivalent" or so.

The question of a container for this type of content needs to be
resolved though. So far I have seen two suggestions:

1. Keeping the equivalent content inside the container itself (i.e.
inside image, picture, object etc)
2. Keeping the content in a separate container which, I guess, could
be placed somewhere else with an appropriate connection between the

Some questions:

For #1, should there be a UA feature that displays the equivalent
content? If so, what would be the recommended way of doing so?

What type of elements are allowed in the euquivalent content? image? video?


Peter Krantz
Received on Friday, 6 July 2007 10:33:55 UTC

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