W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2008

Re: Flickr and alt

From: Patrick H. Lauke <splintered@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 10:28:11 +0100
Message-ID: <ee0b30dd0808190228w696ef6c1r1ff0ff35d6fb38c7@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd)" <P.Taylor@rhul.ac.uk>
Cc: "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>, "David Poehlman" <david.poehlman@handsontechnologeyes.com>, "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>, "James Graham" <jg307@cam.ac.uk>, "Steven Faulkner" <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, "W3C WAI-XTECH" <wai-xtech@w3.org>, public-html@w3.org
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 10:06 AM, Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd) <P.Taylor@rhul.ac.uk
> wrote:

> I do not use Flickr, but I do use Picasaweb, which I believe
> is analogous.  On Picasaweb, albums can be public or private.
> Would those who seek to differentiate between public and
> private facilities in terms of accessibility therefore
> accept that a /public/ album is /public/, and must therefore
> meet all legal accessibility requirements ?
Or else what? Flickr/Picasaweb/etc get sued? Individual users who do not
provide adequate descriptions to their uploads get sued?

I'm with Robert...the discussion is getting lost in areas which, in my view,
have nothing to do with HTML5 itself.

Patrick H. Lauke
re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
[latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk
Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
Received on Thursday, 21 August 2008 02:16:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:37 UTC