- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 01:16:31 +0000
- To: public-html-a11y@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10642 Matt May <mattmay@adobe.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mattmay@adobe.com --- Comment #60 from Matt May <mattmay@adobe.com> 2010-11-12 01:16:28 UTC --- (In reply to comment #59) > Cargo-cult accessibility? First citation by Ian: > "people said headers/id were a good way to do accessibility, and so that was > emulated, without understanding what was being done." http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/2007May/0520.html Applied to programming: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult_programming The upshot is that Ian appears to be saying that the visual information presented in a keyframe couldn't possibly have semantic value to someone who cannot see it, and as a result, those foolish enough to suggest such a thing are fundamentally no more advanced than bush people. Which leaves one to wonder why an image presented via <img> or <input type="image"> should accept fallback content, but not an image that iconifies a video. I suspect the answer to this would be because Ian feels @alt is also "cargo-cult accessibility," in which case we should just fast-forward to the long, worthless process of escalation leading to a WG decision, followed by another fork between the W3C and WHATWG versions of HTML5, rather than re-litigate one of the most basic requirements for accessibility of web content. -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Friday, 12 November 2010 01:16:32 UTC