- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 01:16:29 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@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 the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Friday, 12 November 2010 01:16:30 UTC