- From: Jim Ley <jim@e-media.co.uk>
- Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 17:30:57 -0000
- To: "Anne Pemberton" <apembert45@yahoo.com>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
"Anne Pemberton": > The image is visually associated on the page. HTML is structural, you could at most associate an image with its parent and sibling elements, there is no "visual association" on a page, because there is no visual rendering of HTML, that's down to the User Agent, and any _suggestions_ via stylesheets etc. > Well, there are people who don't use images well, just > as there are people who don't use words well. The > point is not to discriminate, no matter how fancy you > write the words, they are still a barrier. Indeed, I have no argument against that, my argument is purely that it is not possible to provide effective examples or more importantly testability of this category so it can't be normative. I also believe it's not possible to produce a single set of illustrations which work across the whole (English speaking even) world, which is another problem. As this is also Alternative content, it should be provided in a manner which the display of can be controlled by the user. (what is the alt text of these images - is it not the text which is already on the page?) There needs to be some HTML mechanisms for providing multimedia alternative content before this can be normative I feel. > > I can't find this in the archives - do you have a > > link? > > No, I don't save mail that far back. Can't imagine why > it isn't archived. I'm sure it is, my inefficient searching is obviously not turning it up... Jim.
Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2001 13:32:36 UTC