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

Re: HTML Action Item 54 - ...draft text for HTML 5 spec to require producers/authors to include @alt on img elements.

From: Gez Lemon <gez.lemon@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 15:28:26 +0100
Message-ID: <e2a28a920805210728w5d4b6aa3x4b554439edfa9650@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Andrew Sidwell" <takkaria@gmail.com>
Cc: public-html@w3.org, "W3C WAI-XTECH" <wai-xtech@w3.org>, wai-liaison@w3.org

2008/5/21 Andrew Sidwell <takkaria@gmail.com>:
>> Considering not being able to view content in a browser as a much,
>> much bigger accessibility problem for you than missing alt text
>> demonstrates a total lack of empathy.
>
> It demonstrates no such thing, because the statement was explicitly
> qualified with "for me".

I included the qualification in my response. Comparing something that
can easily be changed against an aspect of a person that cannot be
changed does show a lack of empathy.

>  If I can't even get access to the image
> viewer, then that presents a much bigger problem *for me* than than
> images shown not having alt text.

It's a problem you can overcome by switching your browser.

> Whether an image I can't see has alt
> text or not is utterly irrelevant to me

It is entirely relevant in an a thread about accessibility;
particularly a thread about the alt attribute.

> , in the same way that what kind
> of salad is on someone else's sandwich on the other side of the world is
> irrelevant to me.  Regardless of how much empathy I have, or how much I
> prefer one kind of salad to another.

If you were discussing the technicalities of the salad, it would be relevant.


Gez


-- 
_____________________________
Supplement your vitamins
http://juicystudio.com
Received on Wednesday, 21 May 2008 14:29:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:55 UTC