- From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 08:34:35 -0700
- 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 15:35:05 UTC