W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2004

Re: content: url() is bad

From: Dave Shea <dave@mezzoblue.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 09:59:14 -0700
Message-ID: <407ACAE2.6020805@mezzoblue.com>
To: www-style@w3.org

> The current proposal, which I intend to make sure the spec states, is that
> if the image is not downloaded in the case above, the UA must
> automatically fallback to using whatever the element's contents were.

That's the most sensible fix.

> Quite possibly, but frankly, those screen readers are using the wrong
> solution. The solution to aural rendering of Web pages is media="speech"
> and an aural CSS renderer, not media="screen" and a screen-to-voice
> convertor.
> 
> Imposing restrictions on the solution space of one media because the
> implementors of another media are incorrectly implementing the specs is
> not acceptable, IMHO.

Interesting take, and I'd love to agree with you, but of course the page 
authors take blame for poor accessibility at the end of the day. Can we, 
in good conscience, decrease a page's accessibility and blame it on the 
UA not conforming? That's a loaded and somewhat unfair question of 
course (since the spec is obviously there to encourage accessibility) 
but it's a real-world dilemma many page authors face.

Not to say this is the WG's problem to solve; it's not. Compliant user 
agents would make everything better. I'm all for the new 'reader' media 
type.

d.
Received on Monday, 12 April 2004 12:59:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:28 GMT