W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > wai-xtech@w3.org > August 2007

Re: Baby Steps or Backwards Steps?

From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 08:34:35 -0700
Message-ID: <46C46E8B.9060904@gorge.net>
To: Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>
CC: James Graham <jg307@cam.ac.uk>, "Gregory J. Rosmaita" <oedipus@hicom.net>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Jason White <jason@jasonjgw.net>, public-html@w3.org, wai-xtech@w3.org

Robert Burns wrote:
>   Among those problems are that the requirement of @alt has 
> detrimental effect along with benefits No one is disputing that.
There's this one old guy in the Wilds of Washington State who is in fact 
disputing that because except for its <i>reductio ad absurdum</i> status 
("Mussolini made the trains run on time") of excusing the clear efforts 
at exclusion engendered by pretending that one's Web postings are only 
for people who can see images (including personal email instances) is so 
much more deleterious to the "everyone/everythingeverywhere/always 
connected" principle on which the WWW is based that to suggest either 
eliminating @alt or making it so complex that we'd have to spend ten 
years deciding about "alternative alternatives".

Alt-text is often referred to as the "poster child of Web 
Acccessibility" and as is evident from these threads. jacking with it 
will generate a whole lot of heat that was already faded about ten years 
ago. @alt ain't broke, don't fix it! Sure there will be sociopaths who 
contend that "I make my pages for people who can see, and bugger those 
who can't.

Love.
>
>
Received on Thursday, 16 August 2007 15:35:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 13:15:43 GMT