W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 2007

Re: Comments on IRC log

From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 09:09:33 +1000
Message-ID: <46A929AD.5070904@lachy.id.au>
To: joshue.oconnor@ncbi.ie
CC: 'wai-ig list' <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>, public-html <public-html@w3.org>

Joshue O Connor wrote:
>> # [07:50] <Lachy> aargh! It really annoys me how some people conflate
> making content accessibile with providing fallback to those without the
> necessary software
> 
> Am unsure of why this frustration arises. AFAIK the whole idea is that
> accessible content/fallback content are for all intents and purposes -
> the same.

No, they are not necessarily the same.  Consider video, for example, 
using the proposed <video> element.

<video src="/movie">
   <a href="/movie">Download the video</a>
</video>

The content of the video element is fallback for those that don't 
support the video element.  It doesn't make the video itself accessible. 
  The video should, ideally, be made accessible by providing, for 
example, captions and audio descriptions embedded in the file itself.

If you also wanted to provide an alternative for users that don't 
support the video format, then that would require a different approach. 
  Perhaps the video could be provided in multiple formats, or perhaps 
some kind of textual alternative that describes both the dialog and 
action in the video.  The textual alternative may also be useful for 
users who are both deaf and blind, for whom captions and audio 
descriptions are both ineffective.

My point is, addressing different needs for different users sometimes 
requires different approaches.  There is not always going to be a single 
solution for everyone.

-- 
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/
Received on Thursday, 26 July 2007 23:10:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 10 December 2014 20:11:52 UTC